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

AY SM ITH, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. M . M C DONALD, W arde n , R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 13-15474

D.C . No. 2:09-c v-02967-M C EGGH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., C hie f Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 19, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD, W

ATFORD, a

nd FR IEDLAND, C i rc uit Judge s . Pe titione r C ha

rle s R ay Sm ith a

rgue s tha t he wa s unre pre se nte d by c ounse l at his c om pe te nc y he aring, a

c ritic a l sta ge of his pre tria l c rim ina l proc e e dings, in viola tion of Unite d State

s v . C ronic , 466 U.S. 648, 659, 104 S. Ct. 2039, 2047, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657 (1984). Sm i th a lso a rgue s tha t we m ust re vie w his fe de ra l ha

be a s 

# FIL ED
D EC 23 2014 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.c la im denov o , a nd not unde r the de fe re n tia l sta nda rd in 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d), be c a use the “ sta

te c ourts fa ile d to a djudic ate [his] C ronicc la i m .” Fina lly , Sm ith
argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by

de ny ing his m o tion for a n
e vide ntia ry he a ring. W e first a ddre ss Sm ith’ s “ a djudic ation on the m e rits” argum e nt, be c a use it
a ffe c ts our sta

nda rd of re vie w. 1 Whe n a

sta te ’ s highe st a

p pe lla te c ourt sum

m arily
re je c ts a pe titione r’ s fe de ra l c la im s, we “ look through” sum m ary de nia ls to thela st
re a s one d sta

te c ourt de c i sion. C

anne dy v . Adams , 706 F.3d 1148, 1159 (9th C ir. 2013), ame nde d on de nial of re h’g , 733 F.3d 794 (9th C ir. 2013), c e rt. de nie d , 134 S. C t. 1001, 187 L. Ed. 2d 863 (2014). The la st re a sone d de c i sion c onc e rning

1 The wa rde n did not waive his e xha ustion a rgum e nt, se e 28 U.S.C
. § 2254(b)(3), a

nd he ra ise s tha

t a rgum e nt he re . Howe v e r, we c onc lude that Sm i th’ s a rgum e n t wa s e xha

uste d, be c a

u se he fa i rly pre se nte d his C ronicc la im

to a ll sta te c ourts on dire c t re vie w. Se e Turne r v . C ompoy , 827 F.2d 526, 528 (9th C ir. 1987) (“ [A] prisone r ne e d e xha ust only one ave nue of re lie f in sta t e c o urt be fore bringing a

ha be a s pe tition in fe de ra l c ourt. This is true e ve n whe re a lte rnative ave n

u e s of re v ie wing c onstitutiona l issue s a re still a va i la ble in sta te c ourt.” ). Sm ith fa irly

pre se nte d his C

ronicc la im

to the sta te c ourts. M ore ove r, Sm i th’ s C ronicc la im

is not otherwise ba

rre d on a de quate and inde pe nde nt sta te proc e d ura l grounds; C a lifornia R ule of C ourt 8.500(c ) is not a n “ a de quate ” sta

te proc e d ura l ground be c a

use it only

sta te s a C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt polic y re ga rding pe titions for re he a

ring file d in the C ourt of Appe a l be low. It is not m andatory

and doe s not sta

t e tha t a ppe a ls will bere

je c te d for nonc om

p lia n c e . C ompare W

alk e r v . Martin , 131 S. C t. 1120, 1128, 179 L. Ed. 2d 62 (2011) (disc ussing the“ a d e quate ” nature of C a lifornia ’ s disc re tiona ry tim e -bar rule for untim e l y sta te ha be a s pe titions in a c a se whe re the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt e xe rc ise d disc re tion to ba r an untim e ly c la i m ).

2Sm i th’ s sole fe de ra l c la im be fore us is theC a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l ’ s M ay 15, 2009 opinion. Sm ith a rgue s tha t his C ronicc la im

wa s not a djudic ate d on the m e rits, be c a use inste a d of de c iding tha t c la im , the C ourt of Appe a l “ re c ogniz e d tha t Sm ith
ra ise [d] a de n ia l of c ounse l c l a im

. . . but thec la im the sta

t e c ourt a c tua lly
e va luate d wa s a

c om pe te nc e /pre

judic e ba se d a

na ly sis of Sm ith’ s Sixth Am e ndm e n t rights.” In J ohnson v . W

i lliams , the Supre m e C o urt he ld tha t “ [w] he n a

sta t e c ourt
re je c ts a fe de ra l c la i m w i thout e xpre ssly a ddre ssing tha t c la im , a fe de ra l ha

be a s
c ourt m ust pre sum e tha

t the fe d e ra l c la im

wa s a djudic ate d on the m e rits.” 133 S. C t. 1088, 1096, 185 L. Ed. 2d 105 (2013), re h ’g de nie d , 133 S. C t. 1858, 185 L. Ed. 2d 858 (2013). J

o hnson involve d a

sta t e c ourt opinion tha

t “ a ddre sse [d] som e but not a ll of a

de fe n da nt’ s c la im s,” whic h the C ourt sa i d wa s a n irre l e va nt distinc tion from Harrington v. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 131 S. C t. 770, 784–85, 178 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2011), whe re t he sta te c o urt de c i sion in tha

t c a se did not spe c ific a lly
a ddre s s a ny of the de fe nda

nt’ s fe de ra l c la im s. J

ohnson , 133 S. C t. at 1094. Although the pre sum

ption from J

ohnson is re butta

ble , id. at 1096, wec onc lude that Sm ith ha s fa ile d to re but it he re .

3The C ourt of Appe a l spe c ific a lly c ha ra c te riz e d Sm ith’ s de n ia l of c ounse l
c la im a s “ c re a ting a

shroud of re ve rsible e rror pe r se .” C om bining the J

ohnson pre s um ption tha t Sm ith’ s C

ronicc la i m wa s a djudic ate d on the m e rits with this la ngua ge from the C ourt of Appe a l’ s opinion, Sm ith fa i ls to re b ut the pre sum ption. An ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la im

unde r Stric k

l and v . W a shington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. C t. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), doe s not re quire p e r se
re ve rsa l if c ounse l wa s ine ffe c t ive , be c a use the re a lso m

ust be pre judic e for an ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la i m

to suc c e e d. On the othe r hand, a de n ia l of
c ounse l c la im

unde r C ronic , if suc c e ssful, is struc tura l e rror, whic h re quire s
re ve rsa l p e r se . The C ourt of Appe a l’ s re je c tion of Sm ith’ s fe de ra l c la im , while
m e ntioning ne i the r Stric k land nor C ronic , c le a

rly c onside re d the sa lie nt fe ature of Sm i th’ s C ronicc la im

— p e r sere ve rsa l if suc c e ssful. Sm ith ha s not re butte d the pre s um ption, a rising from J

ohnson , tha

t Sm ith’ s C

ronic c la im

wa s a djudic ate d on the m e rits. Se e J

ohnson , 133 S. C t. at 1096. B e c a use we c o nc lude tha

t Sm ith’ s C ronicc l a i m

wa s a d j udic a te d on the m e rits, we owe de fe re nc e to the C ourt of Appe a l’ s de c ision unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). Sm ith c onte nds tha

t he satisfie s the de fe re ntia l sta nda rd unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 2254(d) be c a

use the de c i s ion wa s “ ba s e d on a n unre a sona

ble de te rm i nation of the fa c ts in light of the e vide nc e pre se n te d – tha t is, thee ntire sta

te c ourt re c ords.”
4Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(2). W e disa gre e . Sm ith a rgue s tha t “ t he ke y m ista ke ” the C ourt of Appe a l m a de re ga rding fa c tua l de te rm inations wa s its re fusa l to be lie ve that attorne y Dav i dson would a

ppe ar for Sm ith without knowing tha t wa s the inte nt of Sm ith’ s attorne y . The C ourt of Appe a l’ s c onc lusion a bout a ttorne y Davidson’ s a

ware ne ss a

nd a uthority to a ppe ar for Sm i th is a

fa c t ua l de te rm ination unde r § 2254(d)(2), a

nd it is not a

n unre a sona

ble one be c a

use the tra

nsc ript of the sta te c o urt proc e e ding shows tha t attorne y Davidson wa s a

ware of what c ounse l for both side s ha d a gre e d to re ga rding Sm ith’ s c om

pe te nc y de t e rm i nation a

nd re port. W e a lso c onc lude that the C ourt of Appe a l’ s de nia l of Sm i th’ s C ronicc la im

wa s
ne ithe r “ c ontra

ry to” nor “ involve d a

n unre a sona

ble a p p lic ation of, c le arly
e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w, a s de te rm ine d by

the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d State s.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). First, we find no c le arly

e s ta blishe d Supre m e C ourt
a uthority holding tha

t a la w y e r a ppe aring a s substitute

c ounse l to submit
c om pe te nc y on a n e xpe rt’ s c om

pe te nc y re port is a de nia l of c ounse l at tha t sta ge of the p roc e e ding. Se c ond, 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d) is no “ substitute for ordina

ry e rror
c orre c tion through a

ppe a l,” R ic hte r , 131 S. C t. at 786, a n d he re the re is room

for fa irm inde d jurists to disa

gre e ove r whe the r the C ourt of Appe a l c orre c tly de nie d Sm i th’ s C ronicc la im
.

5Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion by de ny ing Sm ith’ s
m otion for a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring, be c a

use “ [i] f a c l a im ha s be e n a djudic at e d on the m e rits by

a sta te c ourt, a fe de ra l ha

be a s pe t itione r m

ust ove rc o m e the lim ita

tion of § 2254(d)(1) on the re c ord tha t wa s be fore tha

t sta te c ourt.” C

ulle n v . Pinholste r , 131 S. C t. 1388, 1400, 179 L. Ed. 2d 557 (2011). AFFIR M ED.

6