N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAIM E HOYOS,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. R ONALD DAVIS, W arde n, C a lifornia State Prison a

t Sa n Que ntin, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 17-99009 D.C . No. 3:09-c v-00388-L-NLS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M . Ja m e s Lore nz , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

23, 2022 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : IKUTA, C HR ISTEN, a nd B UM ATAY, C irc u it Judge s. Ja im e Hoy os a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his 28 U.S.C
. § 2254 ha be a s c orpus pe t ition in which he sought re lie f from

his sta te -c ourt c onvic tions
and de ath se nte nc e . Hoy os ra ise s se ve ra l c e rtifie d c la im s on a ppe a l. W e a ddre ss 

# F IL ED SEP 2 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.a ll but his Batson c la im he re . 1 W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291
and 2253, a

nd we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of Hoy os’ s ha be a s pe tition. W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a fe de ra l ha

b e a s pe tition. K ipp v . Dav is , 971 F.3d 939, 948 (9th C ir. 2020). Pursua nt to the Antite rrorism
and Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty Ac t of 1996 (AEDPA), wede fe r to the la st sta te -c ourt de c ision on the

m e rits of a

ny c la im unle ss tha

t de c i sion wa s “ c ontra

ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of, c le arly

e sta b lishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de te rm i ne d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d State s,” or wa s “b a s e d on a n unre a s ona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c ts in light of the e vide nc e pre se nte d in the Stat e c ourt proc e e ding.” State n v . Dav is , 962 F.3d 487, 494 (9th C i r. 2020) (quoting 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)). He re , we re v ie w the C a l ifornia Supre m e C o urt’ s ruling on dire c t a

ppe a l. Se eW

ilson v . Se lle r

s , 138 S. C t. 1188, 1192 (2018). 2 1. Hoy os ra ise s m

ultiplec la im s re ga

rding ja ilhouseinform ant Ge orge Jim e n e z , who m a de sta

te m e nts to la

w e nforc e m e nt re ga

rding c o-de fe nda

nt Jorge Em ilio Alva

ra do’ s pa rtic ipat ion in theM a g oon m urde rs. First, Hoy os a

rgue s tha t

1 Se eBatson v . K

e ntuc k y , 476 U.S. 79 (1986). W e a ddre ss Hoy os’ s B atson c la im in a c onc urre ntly

file d publishe d opinion. Hoyos a lso inc lude d thre e unc e rtifie d c la i m s in his opening brie f a s an a p plic at ion to e xpa

nd the C e rtific ate of Appe a la bility (C OA). Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 22(b)(2); Ninth C ir. R
. 22-1(e ). W e de c line to gra

nt a C OA a s to thosethre e c la i m s. 2 B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c ts, we re c ite only those ne c e ssa ry to de c ide the a

ppe a l
. 2his c onstitutiona l rights to due

proc e ss, to te stify , and to re c e ive a fa ir tria l we re viola te d whe n the tria l c ourt de nie d his m otion to sev e r his tria l from Alva ra do’ s tria l , a nd tha t the C a l ifornia

Supre m e C ourt’ s re

je c tion of this c la im

wa s a n unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of Unite d State s Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt. Jim e n e z ’ s sta te m e nts did not dire c tly

im plic ate Hoy os, but Hoy o s c la im s the sta te m e nts im pa c te d his right to te s tify

be c a use he and his c o -de fe n da nt m a d e a joint de c ision whe the r to te stify : “ It wa s e ithe r both or none .” The C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt
c onc lude d Hoy os’ s a

rgum e nts la c ke d m e rit be c a use the tria l c ourt rule d the Jim e n e zsta

te m e nts we re only

a dm issibleif Alva

ra do te stifie d

and nothing in the sta te m e nts pre c lude d Hoy os from te stify ing. Se e Pe oplev . Hoy os , 162 P.3d 528, 547 (C a l. 2007).

“ [T] he re is no c le arly e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w re quiring se ve ran c e of c rim ina l tria l s in sta

te c ourt,” Runninge aglev . Ry an , 686 F.3d 758, 774 (9th C i r. 2012), a nd Hoy os doe s not ide ntify

any c le arly e sta b lishe d Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt supporting his position tha t the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt viola

te d his
c onstitutiona

l rights. Even

a s sum ing tha

t the C a lifornia

Supre m e C o urt e rre d, Hoy os ha s not de m o nstra te d tha t a ny e rror ha d a

“ substa ntia l a nd injurious e ffe c t or influe nc e ” on the ve rdic t . Bre c ht v . Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619, 637–38 (1993). The re fore , we a ffirm

the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of this c la im
.

3Se c ond, Hoy os a rgue s the prose c ution’ s de la y e d disc losure of the W e il R e port de prive d him of his dueproc e ss rights in viola t ion of Brady

v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Hoy os c onte nds the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt’ s de c ision
re futing this c la im

wa s a n unre a sona

ble de te rm ination of thefa c ts in light of a n

“ undispute d re c ord.” Ac c ording to Hoy os, the re c ord is une quivoc a l tha t ne ithe r Hoy os nor Alva

ra do te s tifie d “ b e c a

use of Alva

ra do’ s dire c t vulne ra

b ility to im pe a c hm e nt by

the Jim e ne z sta

te m e nts,” and he argue s tha t both de fe nda

nts would ha ve te stifie d if the W e il R e p ort ha d be e n tim e l y disc lose d be c a

use it wa s signific ant im

pe a c hm e nt e vide nc e . The distric t c ourt c onc lude d the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt’ s de te rm ination wa s not unre a s ona b le be c a use it wa s not c e rta in that Hoy o s a c tua lly

would ha ve te stifie d

if he ha d re c e ive d the W e i l R e port a nd be c a use Hoy os fa ile d to show how his te stim ony would ha ve c h ange d

the outc om e
at tria l. To suc c e e d

on his Brady

c la im , Hoy os wa s re q

uire d to e sta b lish tha t: (1) the withhe ld e vide nc e wa s favora ble to him

“ be c a use it is e xc u lpatory , or be c a use it is im pe a c h ing” ; (2) the e vide nc e wa s “ suppre sse d by the State , e ithe r willfully or ina d ve rte ntly ” ; a

nd (3) he wa s pre

judic e d a s a

re sult. Stric k

le r v . Gre e ne , 527 U.S. 263, 281–82 (1999). A B rady c la im is not m e ritorious “

unle ss the nondisc losure
wa s so se rious tha

t the re is a

re a sona ble proba bility tha t the suppre sse d

e vide nc e
4would ha

ve produc e d a

diffe re nt ve rdic t.” Id. at 281; se e also United State s v . Bagle y , 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985). Hoy os’ s a rgum e nt foc use s on thepre judic e prong, but he doe s not e xpla in how his te stim o ny would ha ve c ha nge d the outc om e
at tria l, a n d it wa s not unre a sona

ble for the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt to de c ide tha t the i m p a c t of the W e il R e p ort on Hoy os’ s de c ision to te s tify wa s “ highly spe c ulative ,” Hoy o s , 162 P.3d a t 565, given both the nature of the re port a nd Hoy os’ s tria l c ounse l’ s sta te m e nts re ga

rding wha

t Hoy os’ s te stim ony

would ha ve be e n. Wh e the r Hoy os would ha ve te stifie d is e ve n m ore doubtful given his
re pe ate d insisten c e tha

t he would not ha

ve te stifie d unle ss his c o-de fe n da nt te stifie d, a

nd it is spe c ulative whe the r e arlie r disc losure of the W e il R e port would have c a use d Alva ra do to te s tify . Ac c o rdingly , we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision tha

t the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt’ s de c ision wa s not ba se d on a n unre a s ona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c ts. 3 Third, Hoy os c onte nds he wa s de n ie d his right to e ffe c tive a ssista nc e of
c ounse l by

the de la y e d disc l osure of the W e il R e port be c a use his tria l c ounse l we re

“ de fic ie nt in the ir e fforts to a ffirm ative ly inve stiga te an d im pe a c h inform ant Jim e n e z .” The distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t Hoy os like ly

fa ile d to e xha

ust this

3 Hoy os a lso a

rgue s the a lle g e d B rady viola tion re sulte d in a

viola tion of his right to te stify , but for the sam e re a sons his right-to-te stify c la im re late d to his se ve ranc e c la im fa ils, it fai l s unde r the Brady the ory a s we l l. 5c la im

be c a use he did not ra ise it in thesta te c ourts. 4 The distric t c ourt sa id it
c onside re d the c l a im

de novo pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2254(b)(2), y e t it ultimate ly
c onc lude d tha

t the C a lifornia

Supre m e C o urt’ s re

j e c tion of thec la i m

“ wa s ne ithe r c ontra ry to, nor a n unre a sona

b le a pplic ation of, Stric k

land .” On a

ppe a l, Hoy os doe s not a ddre ss how this c la i m wa s prope rly

e xha uste d. W e e xe rc i se our disc re tion to re a c h the m e rits of his une xha uste d c la im
. Se e Gatlin v . Madding , 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th C ir. 1999) (a c knowle d ging tha t pursua nt to § 2254(b)(2) a

c ourt m ay

de ny a ha be a s pe tition by re a c hing them e rits of une xha uste d c la im s, but e xpla ining it is not re quire d to do so); R u nninge agle , 686 F.3d a

t 777 n.10 (sa

m e ); c f. Buc k le y v . Te rhune , 441 F.3d 688, 694 (9th C ir. 2006) (e n ba

nc ) (“ W e m ay

a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord, e ve n if it diffe rs from

the rationa le use d by

the distric t c ourt.” ). To e sta blish tha t his
c ounse l’ s c onduc t rose to the le ve l of a c o nstitutiona

l de priva tion, Hoy os wa s re quire d to show tha

t: (1) c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt; a nd (2) the

4 On dire c t a

ppe a l, Hoy o s a

rgue d the lat e disc losure of the W e il R e port “ wa s pre j udic ia l be c a

use it viola

te d his right to re c e ive m e aningful guida nc e ” from c ounse l a bout his de c isions to te stify
. Hoy os , 162 P.3d a t 565. TheC a lifornia Supre m e C ourt e xpla i n e d tha t Hoy os did “not a

rgue that his trial c ounse l [we re ] de fic ie nt be c a

use he fa ile d to unc o ve r the Jim e ne z im pe a c hm e nt e vide nc e ,” so, unlike the c la im

he ra ise s he re , in thesta

te c ourt the re wa s “ no issueof tria l c ounse l’ s not be c o m ing a w are of re le v ant e vide nc e through c o unse l’ s fa ilure to c onduc t a re a sona b le inve stiga

tion.” Id. 6de fic ie nt pe rform anc e pre j udic e d his de fe nse . S

e e Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). As to the first prong, Hoy os doe s not e xpla in how his
c ounse l c ould ha

ve be e n a ware of the possibility

of undisc lose d e vide nc e , a n d, in doing so, he

c onfla te s his ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c o unse l c la im with his Brady
c la im
. As for pre

judic e , Hoy os shows ne ithe r that disc losure of the W e il R e port would ha ve c a use d him to te stify nor how his te stim ony

would ha ve c h a n ge d the outc om e at tria l. Inste a d, he a sse rts in a c o nc lusory

m anne r that ha d he “ te stifie d that he did not kill the

M a g o ons, a

nd if the de fe nse ha d c o nfronte d the blood spla tte r e v ide nc e and othe r fore nsic e vide nc e , the re is a strong proba

bility the outc om e of the tria l would ha v e be e n ve ry diffe re nt.” At ora l argum e nt be fore our c ourt, Hoy os’ s c ounse l a dm i tte d tha t de fe nse c ounse l use d e xpe rts to c rosse xam ine the sta

te ’ s blood spla

tte r e xpe rt at tria l. W e are not pe rsua de d tha t Hoy os ha s e sta blishe d pre

judic e . C f. Ge ntry v . Sinc lair , 705 F.3d 884, 906 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ B e c a use we have he ld tha

t none of the im

pe a c hm e nt e v ide nc e argue d in support of [the de fe nda

nt’ s] Brady

c la im is m ate ria l, tha

t a n a ly sis is dispositive

of the pre j udic e prong of a

n ine ffe c t ive a ssista

nc e c la im ba s e d on the sa

m e e vide n c e .” ). Eve n on de novo re v i e w, we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of this c la im be c a use it fa ils unde r both prongs of Stric k land
.

72. Ne xt, Hoy os ra ise s se ve ra l c la im s re ga rding e vide nc e of third-pa rty
c ulpa bility re late d to theLuna

brothe rs. He argue s: (1) his c ounse l’ s fa ilure to
a de quate ly

inve s tiga te the Luna

brothe rs am ounte d to ine ffe c tive a s sista n c e of
c ounse l, (2) the prose c ution’ s fa ilure to provideinform ation re ga rding theLuna brothe rs am ounte d to a Brady viola tion, and (3) the se fa ilure s c o m bine d to infringe on his right to te stify
. W e a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t Hoy o s’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e of
c ounse l c la im

re ga rding theLuna

brothe rs fa ils. 5 First, Hoy os’ s tria l c ounse l
atte m pte d to ga the r furthe r inform ation a b out Da vid Luna but wa s una

ble to do so. Se c ond, e ve n

a ssum ing Hoy os c ould e sta blish tha t c ounse l we re de fic i e nt, we
a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t Hoy os ha s not shown pre judic e . “ Evide n c e of third-pa rty c ulpa bility is not a dm issible‘ if it sim ply a ffords a possible ground of suspic ion a ga inst [a

nothe r] pe rson; ra

the r, it must be

c ouple d w ith substantial
e v ide nc e te nding to direc tly c onne c t that pe rson w ith the ac tual c o mmission of the offe nse .’ ” P e opleof Te rritory of Guam v . Ignac io , 10 F.3d 608, 615 (9th C ir. 1993) (quoting Pe rry

v . Rushe n , 713 F.2d 1447, 1449 (9th C ir. 1983)). At most,

5 Hoy os ra i se d the ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im

in his se c ond sta

te ha be a s pe tition, a

nd the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt de nie d it both on the m e rits a nd a s proc e dura lly

ba rre d
. The distric t c ourt re vie we d the m e rits of theine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im

de novo. 8Hoy os shows tha t third pa rtie s m ay have ha d m otive and opportunity to kill the M a g oons, but he

doe s not provideany

substa ntia l e vide nc e c onne c ting a third pa rty to the m urde rs. As for the Brady c la im

c o nc e rning disc losure of inform ation re ga rding the Luna brothe rs, the distric t c o urt c o nc lude d Hoy os “ fa i l[e d] to de m o nstra te tha t David Luna ’ s ide ntify ing inform ation wa s itse lf e i the r e xc ulpa t ory or m ate ria l.” B ut e ve n a ssum ing theprose c utor’ s fa ilure to disc lose satisfie d Brady ’ s suppre ssion prong, Hoyos’ s c la im fa i ls be c a

use he doe s not de m onstra te pre judic e for the sa m e re a sons he fa ils to de m onstra t e pre judic e on his ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c l a im
. 6 Hoy os’ s re late d right-to-te stify c la im fa ils be c a

use it is pre m ise d

on his Brady and ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e of c ounse l c la i m s. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of Hoy os’ s ha be a s pe t ition ba se d

on his c la im s re late d to the Luna brothe rs.

6 Hoy os a lso c l a im s his sta te a ppe lla te c ounse l we re ine ffe c tive for fa iling to ra ise a third-pa

rty c ulpa bility c la im

in Hoy os’ s first sta

te ha be a s pe tition. The distric t c o urt c onc lude d

“ suc h a n a rgum e nt fa i ls to find support in c le arly e sta blishe d la w.” Post-c onvic tion “ c ounse l a c ts a s the pe titione r’ s a ge nt . . . a nd the p e titione r m

ust be ar the risk of a

ttorne y e rror be c a

use the re is no c onstitutiona l right to c ounse l in sta

te [post-c onvic tion] proc e e d ings.” D e tric h v . Ry an , 740 F.3d 1237, 1243–44 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d) (quoting C

ole m an v . Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 753 (1991)), c e r t. de nie d, 572 U.S. 1146 (2014). W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of this c la im
.

93. Hoy os a lso c onte nds his trial c ounse l we re ine ffe c t ive be c a u se the y fa ile d to inve stiga

te and pre se nt othe r substa ntia l e xc ulpa

tory and im

pe a c hing e vide nc e during theguilt pha se . In pa rtic ula r, Hoy os a

rgue s tria l c ounse l’ s de fe nse wa s: (1) inc o nsiste nt with the ve rsion of e ve nts tha t Hoy os offe re d; a

nd (2) “pre dic ate d
e ntire l y on the puta

tive e xiste nc e of a

sudde n qua rre l a nd shootout with Da

n M a g oon, without a

ny c om pa ra b le or c om

ple m e nta ry de fe nse a s to the m

urde r of M ary M a goon.” Hoy os a lso c ha lle nge s the e ffic a c y of tria l c ounse l’ s blood spla tte r inve stiga

tion. Thedistric t c ourt de nie d this ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of
c ounse l c la im , ruling tha

t the C a lifornia

Supre m e C o urt “ c o u ld ha ve re a sona

bly
re je c te d [the c la im ] ba s e d on [Hoy os’ s] fa ilure to sa tisfy Stric k

land ’ s pe rform anc e prong” and ba se d on Hoy os’ s “ fa ilure to de m onstra te pre judic e .” First, we a gre e with the d istric t c ourt tha t Hoy os ha s fa i le d to ove rc om e the

“ strong pre sum

ption tha t c ounse l’ s c onduc t fa lls within the wide ran ge of
re a s ona ble profe ssiona l a ssista

n c e ,” a s is ne c e s sa

ry to de m onstra

te tha t c ounse l’ s pe rform a nc e wa s c onstitutiona

l ly de fic ie nt. Stric k

land, 466 U.S. a

t 689. As the distric t c o urt obse rve d, c ounse l ’ s de c i sion to “ a sse rt se lf-de fe n se or m ansla ughte r for the m urde r of Dan ie l M a g oon a nd se c ond de gre e m

urde r for M ary

M a goon”
wa s “ c le arly

ta c tic a l ” and “ w ithin thesc ope of ‘ re a sona ble profe s siona l

10a ssista

nc e .’ ” 7 As the distric t c ourt note d , while “ the e vide n c e of Da n ie l M a goon’ s prope n sity

for viole nc e wa s substa

ntia l, . . . thee vide nc e c onc e rning M a ry wa s la rge ly ba se d on Hoy os’ s spe c ulative sta te m e nt tha

t she m i ght ha

ve be e n going for
a gun tha t e ve ning.” Tria l c ounse l atte m p t e d to introduc e e vide nc e of M ary M a g oon’ s fam ilia

rity with we a pons, without suc c e ss. Hoy os , 162 P.3d a t 558. And a ny e vide nc e tha

t M ary M a goon ha d ne g le c t e d he r c h ildre n, be y ond the
e vide nc e of c oc a ine in he r sy s te m tha t wa s pre se nte d to thejury , wa s too spe c ulative and c onc lusory to support a

prope nsity

argum e nt a g a inst he r. Hoy os a lso a

rgue s tha t tria l c ounse l e rre d in fa iling to e lic i t, from the M a g oons’ se ve n-y e a

r-old son, tha

t he kne w Hoy o s a s a

frie nd of his fa

the r and tha

t Hoy os ha d not goneto his house on the night of the

shootings. As the

distric t c ourt note d, the re c ord shows tha t the M a g oons’ son sta

t e d during intervie ws, a

nd te stifie d at tria l, tha

t he wa s a sle e p during them urde rs. W e a ffirm

the distric t

7 Hoy os c onte nds tha

t tria l c ounse l should ha

ve pre se nte d e vide nc e tha t M ary wa s involve d in he r husba nd’ s drug busine ss, wa s fam ilia r with theuse of fire arm s, a

nd wa s a c hronic drug use r. C ounse l did a tte m pt to introduc e som e suc h e vide nc e but de c ide d to pre s e nt e vide nc e foc use d on Da nie l’ s prope nsity for viole nc e , a

nd we a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t this wa s a

re a sona ble strate gic de c ision. Further, the distric t c ourt a ssum e d, without de c iding, tha t the tria l c ourt’ s re se rvations a

bout the i ntroduc tion of e v ide nc e c o n c e rning M ary ’ s prope nsity for viole nc e “ am ounte d to a

n e xpre ss ruling e xc luding tha t e v ide nc e ,” but tha

t Hoy os fa ile d to de m onstra

te an a buse of disc re tion. W e a gre e with thedistric t c o urt, a nd we de c line to re a c h Hoy os’ s unc e rtifie d c la im c ha lle nging thee x c lusion of c e rta in e vide nc e c o nc e rning M ary . 11c ourt’ s judgm e nt tha t the fa ilure to que stion theM a goons’ son a bout this inc o nsiste nc y , give n his a ge and tra um atic e xpe rie nc e s, “ m ight bec onside re d sound tria l stra

te gy .” As for the blood spla

tte r e vide nc e , Hoy os a lle ge s tria l c ounse l we re de fic i e nt be c a use the y did not e lic it e vide nc e like tha t of re t ire d la

we n forc e m e nt offic e r Ge orge C rawford. B ut a s the distric t c ourt note d, C ra wford’ s de c la

ration wa s not pa rt of the re c ord in Hoy os’ s sta te c ourt proc e e dings, so wec annot c onside r it. Se e C ulle n v . Pinholster , 563 U.S. 170, 181–82 (2011) (pre c luding a fe de ra l ha

be a s c ourt’ s c o nside ration of ne w e vide nc e whe n re vie wing a sta te c ourt’ s de c i sion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 2254(d)). M o re ove r, the tria l re c ord shows tha t Hoy os’ s c ounse l re butte d the prose c ution’ s blood spla tte r and DNA e xpe rts through

“ e x te nsive ” c ross-e x a

m ination a

nd the use of the ir own e xpe rts, na m e ly e xpe rts in
c rim ina listic s a

nd DNA a

na ly sis. W ithout suffic ie nt e vide ntia ry support de m onstra

ting how c ounse l ’ s re sponse to the Stat e ’ s blood spla tte r e vide nc e wa s de fic ie nt a

n d not stra

te gic , Hoy os’ s c la im

is no m o re tha

n spe c u lative
. Se e Runninge agle , 825 F.3d a t 984; se e also Stric

k land, 466 U.S. a

t 689 (“ T he re are c ountle ss wa

y s to providee ffe c tive a ssista nc e in a ny give n c a s e . Eve n the be st
c rim ina l de fe nse attorne y s would not de fe n d a pa rtic u la r c lie nt in thesa

m e wa y .” ).

12Se c ond, Hoy os ha s not de m onstra te d tha t the outc om e of tria l would ha ve be e n diffe re nt but for c ounse l’ s a lle ge d de fic ie nc ie s. As for e v ide nc e re ga rding M ary , the jury le arne d tha t M ary , like Da

n, use d c o c a i ne , a

nd the toxic ology
re ports showe d tha

t M a ry ha d a lm ost four tim e s a s m uc h a c tive c oc a ine in he r blood a s he r husba

n d at the tim e of he r de ath, se e Hoy o s , 162 P.3d a t 540. B ut the jury a lso le arne d tha

t M ary wa s shot while

holding her thre e -y e ar-old son, “ and the n finishe d off with a

bulle t to theba c k of he r he a d.” Id. at 558. Hoy os fa ils to de m onstra

te tha t a dditional e vide nc e would ha v e ove rc om e the e vide nc e re ga rding the c irc um s ta

nc e s of M ary ’ s m

urde r, and he thus fa i ls to e sta b lish pre judic e . As for the blood spla

tte r e vide nc e , Hoy os c annot de m o nstra te pre judic e be c a

use

“ [s] pe c u lation a

bout wha t a n e xpe rt c ould ha

ve sa id is not enough to e sta b lish pre j udic e .” Grisby

v . Blodge tt , 130 F.3d 365, 373 (9th C i r. 1997). The re wa s substa ntia l e vide nc e supporting the jury ’ s first-de gre e m

urde r ve rdic ts a

nd Hoy os ha s not ove rc om e his burde n to show tha t c ounse l’ s a lle ge d e rrors we re pre judic ia l.
4. Hoy os ne xt a

rgue s c ounse l we re ine ffe c tive for fa iling to ade quate ly inve stiga te his lifehistory

and m e nta l im

pa irm e nts a

nd the re by

fa i ling to pre se nt suffic i e nt m itiga

ting e vide nc e during the pe na lty pha se . Stric k

land e sta blishe d the sta nda rd for ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la im s re ga rding c ounse l ’ s
13inve stiga

tion into pote

ntia l m itiga

ting e vide nc e : “ [S] t

rate g ic c h oic e s m a d e a fte r le ss tha n c om ple te inve stiga

tion a re re a sona

b l e pre c ise ly

to the e xte nt tha

t
re a s ona ble profe ssiona l judgm e nts support the lim ita t ions on the

inve stiga tion.” 466 U.S. a

t 690–91. C onse que ntly , “ [i] n a ny ine ffe c tive ne ss c a se , a

pa rtic ula r de c ision not to inve stiga

te m ust be dire c tly

a sse sse d for re a sona

ble ne ss in a ll the
c irc um s ta nc e s , a pply ing a he avy m e a sure of de fe re nc e to c ounse l’ s judgm e nts.” Id. at 691. W e a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t Hoy o s did not show tha

t de fe nse c ounse l’ s inve s tiga

t ions— and a

ny de c ision not to inve stiga

te furthe r— fe ll be low
an obje c tive ly

re a sona b l e sta nda rd. As pa rt of its inve stiga

t ion, Hoy o s’ s de fe nse te am m a de se ve ra l trips to M e xic o to inte rvie w m e m be rs of Hoy os’ s fam i ly , re ta ine d a psy c hologist to ev a luate Hoy os, a nd c onsulte d with a

soc ia l
anthropologist who studied torture in M e xic o. As the distric t c ourt obse rve d,
c ounse l “ m a de a

strat e gic de c ision to focu s on sy m pathy and a void introduc ing
c ha ra c te r te stim ony

to ke e p e vide nc e of [Hoy os’ s] prior c rim ina l a c tivity away from the jury .” C ounse l de c ide d tha t Hoy os’ s fam ily

m e m be rs would te stify during thepe na lty

pha se not a

b out “ what a gre at pe rson M r. Hoy o s ha s be e n in the pa st, but how m

u c h the y would miss him

in the future we re he to die .” This de c ision wa s stra

t e gic be c a use c ounse l wa

nte d to a void “ ope n [ing] the door to a ny
14c ha

ra c te r im pe a c hm e nt or re butta l,” to shie ld the jury from he aring e v ide nc e of Hoy os’ s prior c onvic tions in M e xic o for robbe ry , the ft, forge ry , and drugtra ffic king. C ounse l’ s de c isions we re re a sona ble in light of the i r se nte nc ing strate gy . C

f. W i ggins v . Smith , 539 U.S. 510, 527 (2003) (“ [A] re vie wing c o urt
m ust c o nside r the re a sona

ble ne ss of the inve stiga

t ion sa id to support [c ounse l’ s] strate gy .” ). M ore ove r, Hoy os c annot e sta blish pre j udic e be c a

use he fa ils to de m o nstra

te that the a dditional m i tiga

ting e vide nc e would ha

ve ove rc om e the substa

ntia l
a ggrav at ing e vide nc e , e ve n if c ounse l a dopte d the strat e gy that Hoy os now urge s wa s re quire d. The C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt wa s not unre a sona ble in c onc luding othe rwise
. 5. La st, Hoy o s brie fly

argue s his de ath se nte nc e viola te s Atk ins v . Virginia , 536 U.S. 304 (2002), be c a use he “ s uffe rs from

se rious m e nta l disa

bilitie s of a
ne uropsy c hologic a l na

ture tha t a re the func tiona lly

[sic ] e quiva le nt of m e nta l
re ta rdation with re spe c t to dimi nishing c ulpa bility .” 8 Atk

i ns h e ld tha

t e xe c utions of inte lle c t ua lly disa ble d i ndividua ls a

re c rue l an d unusua l punishm e nts prohibite d by

8 Wh ile c ourts “ form e rly e m ploy e d the phra se ‘ m e nta lly re ta rde d,’ we now ‘ u s[e ] the te rm

‘ i nte lle c tua l disa

bility ’ to de sc ribe the ide ntic a l phe nom e non.” Brumfie l d v . C a in , 576 U.S. 305, 308 n.1 (2015) (a lte rat ion in origina

l) (quoting Hall v . Florida , 572 U.S. 701, 704 (2014)). 15the E ighth Am e n d m e nt. Id. at 321. Hoy os c onc e d e s tha t e v ide nc e in the re c ord a s to his disa

bility “ m ay not be ide ntic a l to th[a

t] in Atk i ns ,” but none the le ss urge s us to re m a nd for a he aring on theissue . Hoy os ha s not de m onstra te d how the C a lifornia Supre m e C o urt’ s de nia l of this c la im viola te d c le arly

e sta blishe d fe de ra l la w or wa s ba s e d on a

n unre a sona

ble de te rm ination of thefa c t s, a nd he doe s not
e xpla in wha

t ne we v ide nc e would beune arthe d at a n e vide ntia

ry he aring. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of this c la im
. AFFIRM E D.

16