N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M AR C O ANTONIO DAM IAN, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. J. TIM OC HOA, W arde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 14-55533

D.C . No. 8:13-c v-00810-AHSDFM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Alic e m a rie H. Stotle r, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 6, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT a nd WARDLAW , C irc uit Judge s a nd B ENNETT, ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. This c a se ste m s from M arc o Da m ia n’ s fourth tria l in sta

te c o urt for m

urde r a fte r we pre viously

grante d ha

b e a s re lie f following his third tria l. In his third tria

l, Dam ia n wa s trie d a

nd c onvic te d of se ve ra l c ounts on whic h he ha d pre viously be e n 

# FIL ED JUN 27 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble M ark W . B e nne tt, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Iowa , sitting by de signa tion.a c quitte d a s we ll a s c ha rge s tha t we re not ba

rre d by the Double Je opa

rdy C la use . The tria l c ourt re a liz e d the e rror a t se n te nc ing, a nd struc k the je opa

rdy -barre d c onvic tions. In his prev ious ha be a s pe tition, Da

m ia n c la im e d tha

t striking the c onvic tions wa s ina de quate be c a use the pre se nc e of the je opa rdy -barre d c ha

rge s ta inte d his tria l. Inste a d of m e re ly striking the

im prope r c ha

rge s , Dam ia

n c l a im e d, the s tat e c ourts should ha ve grante d him

a ne w tria l. In our prior de c ision, wehe ld that the re wa s a

“ re a sona ble proba bility ” tha t Da m ia n would not ha

ve be e n c onvic te d of se c o n d-de gre e m urde r if not for the pre se nc e of the je opa rdy -barre d c ha rge s, a nd we orde re d tha

t the writ issuewith re s pe c t to tha t c onvic tion. D amian
v . Vaughn (“ Dam ia

n I” ), 186 F. App’ x 775, 778 (9th C ir. 2006). Subse que n tly , Dam ia n wa s re trie d on the m

urde r c ount a

nd c onvic t e d. Following his a ppe a ls in sta te c o urt, he file d

a fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition whic h wa s de nie d by the distric t c ourt, and the n file d

this tim e l y

a ppe a l. W e a ffirm
. 1. Dam i an first a

rgue s tha t the re tria l of the se c ond de g re e m urde r c ha rge wa s ba rre d by double je opa

rdy and the full fa ith a

n d c re d it c l a

use be c a u se this c ourt pre viously

de te rm ine d tha

t the re wa s a double je opa rdy viola t ion with re spe c t to his m urde r c onvic tion a

nd thus, hec ould not bere t rie d for m urde r. Dam ia

n’ s argum e nt is ba se d on a

funda m e nta l m isre a ding of this c ourt’ s prior de c ision. The issue in D amian I wa s not whe the r the m urde r c ha rge wa s ba

rre d by double 2je opa

rdy , but ra

the r whe the r the pre se n c e of je opa rdy -barre d c ha

rge s during Dam ia n’ s third tria l c onstitute d re ve rsible c onstitutiona l e rror that re q

uire d a ne w tria l (a s oppose d to m e re ly striking the

se nte nc e s for the je opa

rdy -barre d c la im s). Se e , e .g. , id. at 777 (“ [W ] he n an unba rre d offe n se is trie d with a je opa rdy -barre d c ha rge , a ne w

trial is require d

only whe n the de fe nda

nt shows a re lia

ble infe re nc e of pre judic e .” ) (inte rna l quota

tions omitte d) (e m

pha s is a dde d). Dam ia n’ s re lia nc e on Ev ans v . Mic higan , 133 S. C t. 1069 (2013) in support of his a rgum e nt is mispla c e d. In tha t c a se , the Supre m e C ourt found tha t a de fe nda n t’ s re tria l following a

n a c quitta l (e ve n

if a n e rrone ous a c q

uitta l ) is ba

rre d by double je o pa

rdy
. Id. a t 1078. He re , Dam ia n ha s ne ve r be e n a c quitte d of the
m urde r c h arge , nor did we pre v iously de t e rm ine tha t the e vide nc e in his prior tria l wa s le g a l ly

insuffic ie nt for a

c onvic tion. Ac c ordingly , the re tria l of Da m ia n for se c o nd de gre e m

urde r wa s c onsiste nt with our prior me m orandum disposition a

nd did not viola

te his c onstitutiona

l rights. 2. Dam i an ne xt a

rgue s tha t the tria l c ourt viola

te d his c onstitutiona

l rights by a l lowing theprose c ution to introduc e e vide nc e re ga rding the je o pa

rdy -barre d c ha rge s at tria l. Spe c ific a lly , Dam ia n obje c ts to te stim ony

to the e ffe c t tha

t (1) one of his c om

pa nions thre a te ne d a

m an with a gun, a

nd (2) som e one in his c ar shot a t two house s. Da

m ia n c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt should ha ve e xc lude d a

ny 3te stim ony

a bout these c ond houseshooting (be c a u se he ha d be e n a c quitte d of tha t c ha rge ) and instruc te d the gove rnm e nt witne sse s to te stify sim ply that one of his c om pa nions “ displa

y e d the gun” to som e one and the y the n “ d rove on” (be c a

use he ha d be e n c onvic t e d only of a brandishing c ha rge ). This c la im

is c ontra ry to c le arly e sta blishe d Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt. In Dow ling v . Unite d State s , the Supre m e C ourt he ld tha t the introduc tion of othe rwise a dm issiblee vide nc e re late d to je opa rdy -barre d offe nse s doe s not viola te due proc e ss or the double je opa rdy c la use . 493 U.S. 342, 348–50 (1990). Da m ia n a c knowle dge s this pre c e de nt. He c la im s inste a d tha t “ [t] he fa c t tha

t the tria l c ourt ha d a uthority to a dm i t e vide nc e a

bout the je o p ardy -barre d c ounts le a d ing up to the shooting . . . doe s not m e an tha t it rule d c orre c tly

in a llowing this e

vide nc e .” He the n c la im s tha

t the e vide nc e wa s e rrone ously a dm itte d be c a

use (1) it c onflic te d with Damian I

whic h purporte dly

“ disa pprove d of the use ” of this e vide nc e , a nd (2) its a dm ission viola

te d C a lifornia

e vide nc e la

w. His first a

rgum e nt m isre a ds our prior disposition, in whic h we sa id nothing a

bout whe the r e v ide nc e re l ate d to the je opa rdy -barre d offe nse s c ould be introduc e d at a subse q ue nt tria l, but m e re ly

he ld that the inc lusion of the c harge s the mse lv e

s pre judic e d the jury . His se c ond argum e nt re lie s on a

n inte rpre tation of sta

te e vide ntia

ry la w whic h the C a lifornia

4C ourt of Appe a l re je c te d. It is the re fore not c ogniz a ble on fe d e ra l ha

be a s re vie w. Este llev . Mc Guire , 502 U.S. 62, 71 (1991). 3. Da m i an ha s brie fe d two unc e rtifie d issue s: (i) tha t the sta te viola te d his c onstitutiona

l rights by fa iling to inform

the jury tha t he ha d be e n a c quitte d of se ve ra l c o unts, a s re quire d by sta te la w, a nd (ii) tha t C a lifornia c ourts viola

te d due proc e s s a nd funda m e n t a l fa irne ss by

a llowing this c a s e to go to trial for a fourth tim e . W e hold tha

t the sta n da rd for e xpa

n ding a c e rtific ate of a

p pe a la bility ha s not be e n m e t, se e Shoe mak

e r v . Tay lor , 730 F.3d 778, 790 (9th C i r. 2013), a nd thus de c line to c onside r the two unc e rtifie d issue s. AFFIRM E D.

5