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

AY R IC E , Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. W . L. M ONTGOM ER

Y, Ac ting W arde n, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 15-55808 D.C . No. 5:14-c v-02145-AB -R

NB
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 Andre B irotte , Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 6, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, ** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r-Appe lla

nt Joseph R ay

R ic e (R ic e ) a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for a writ of ha

b e a s c orpus. Following a jury tria l , R ic e wa s
c onvic te d of the first-de g re e m urde r of De lvon W illia

m s (W illia

m s ). R ic e 

# FIL ED

MAR 05 2018 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.

* * The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.c onte nds tha t his tria l attorne y

provide d c onstitutiona

lly ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of
c ounse l whe n he fa ile d to obje c t to or lim it infla m m atory c rim i na l history

and ga ng-re late d e vide nc e . The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s c onc lusion tha t tria l c ounse l’ s a lle ge d de fic ie nc ie s did not pre

judic e the outc om e of the proc e e d ings wa s ne ithe r c ontra ry to nor a n unre a sona

ble a pplic a tion of Stric k

l and
. 1 Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1); se e also Harrington v

. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 100-01 (2011). As the C a l ifornia

C ourt of Appe a l obse rve d, R ic e ’ s ide ntity a s the m an who shot W illia m s wa s not a

t issue during tria l; ra

t he r, the que stion be fore the jury c onc e rne d only whe the r R ic e ’ s
a c tions we re pre m e dita

te d. As the C ourt of Appe a l furthe r note d, the c ha lle nge d
e vide nc e re late d to “ the stre e t te rrorism c h arge and ga

ng e nha nc e m e nts,” whic h
we re re ve rse d. At tria l, the e vide n c e e sta blishe d tha

t while at a nightc lub, Ric e ove rhe ard W illia m s a rguing with a

frie nd of R ic e ’ s . R ic e be c am e upse t a fte r he aring W illia m s sta te tha t W illia m s wa s a “ B lood” and a “ Piru,” and tha t “ he would ha ndle his busine ss.” R ic e thought to him s e lf, “ F--- tha t ,” pulle d out a gun, wa lke d

1 Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984) (expla ining tha t to e sta blish pre judic e the de fe nda

n t m ust show “ a

re a sona ble proba bility tha t , but for c ounse l’ s unprofe s siona l e rrors, the re sult of the proc e e ding would ha ve be e n diffe re nt” ). 2ove r, and fata lly shot W i llia

m s. Unque stiona

bly , e xtra ne ous, ga ng-re l ate d e vide nc e should ne v e r hav e be e n pre s e nte d to the jury
. S

e e Pe oplev . Pe ttie , 16 C a l. App. 5th 23, 44 (2017) (“ Som e ga ng e vide nc e re lating to de fe nda nts m ay be so e xtra ordina

rily pre judic ia l, a nd of so little re le va nc e to guilt, tha

t it thre ate ns to swa

y the jury to c o nvic t re ga

rdle ss of the d e fe nda

nt’ s a c t ua l guilt.” ) (c ita

tion a n d inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). Ne ve rthe le ss, give n the e vide nc e of R ic e ’ s re fle c tion be fore c om m itting the
m urde r, se e Pe o

ple v . Me jia , 211 C a l. App. 4th 586, 604 (2012), the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l prope rly c onc l ude d tha

t “ it [wa s] not re a sona

bly proba ble , a ssum ing the c ha lle nge d e v ide n c e wa s ina dm issibleand, the re fore , not introduc e d
a t tria l, tha

t the jury would ha ve re a c he d a

re sult m ore favora

ble to [R i c e ] on the
m urde r c h arge . ” B e c a

u se the C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l re a sona

bly a pplie d
e xisting fe de ra l la

wwhe n de ny ing Ric e ’ s c la im for ine ffe c tive a s sista

nc e of
c ounse l, ha

be a s re lie f is una

va i la ble
. Se e Harrington , 562 U.S. a t 101. AFFIRM E D.

3