T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e R obe rtE . C ow e n, S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s C i r c ui tJ udge *** f orthe T hi r d C i r c ui t , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A LA N D . D A N I ELS, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. R OB E R T HI L DR E T H, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 15221 D. C . No . 2 : 0 2 - c v - 0 1 3 5 2 - L R HLRL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da L a rry R . H i c ks , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r8, 2010 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia Be f o r e : THOM PS ON , COW EN an d S IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. *** A l a n D a ni e l s appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s P e t i t i on f

orW r i tof H abe a s C orpus . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2253, a nd w e l ook 

# FI LED DE C 10 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

t o the l a s tr e a s one d s t a t e c ourtde c i s i on t o de t e rm i ne w he the ri tw a s c ontr a ryt o, or a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , F e d e r a l la w . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ; C o o k v. Sch ri ro , 5 3 8 F. 3 d 1 0 0 0 , 1 0 1 5 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e a f f i rm. T he N e va daS upr e m e C ourt ’ s r e j e c t i on of

D a ni e l s ’ m i s

j oi nde rc l a i m w a s not c o n tr a ry to , o ran u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , S u p r e m e C o u rt p r e c e d e n t. D a n ie ls a r gue s tha the w a s de ni e d af a i rtr i a l by the tr i a l c ourta l l ow i ng the r obbe r i e s of the tw o ba r s t o be tr i e d i n one c a s e a nd de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s e ve r . B ute vi de nc e of the P e pe M ul doon’ s r obbe ry w oul d ha ve be e n a dm i s s i bl e i n as e pa r a t e tr i a l of the I n n Zo n e r o b b e ry , a n d v i c e v e r s a , a s th e tw o c r i me s w e r e p a rto f th e s a me

“ com m on pl an or sc hem e. ” See N e v . R e v . S ta t. § 4 8 .0 4 5 ( 2 ) ; s e e al s o F e d. R . E vi d. 404( b) . A nd the s tr e ngth of the S t a t e ’ s e vi de nc e of

the I nn Z one r obbe ryw a s not s ig n if ic a n tlys tr o n g e rth a n th a t o f th e P e p e M u ld o o n ’s r o b b e ry . See San do val v. Calde r on , 24 1 F . 3d 76 5, 77 3 (9th C i r. 20 01 ) ( fi nd i ng l ac k o f pre j ud i ci al j oi nd er gi ve n s tr e ngth of

S t a t e ’ s c a s e i n both s e t s of c r i m e s a nd c r os s - a dm i s s i bi l i tyof e v id e n c e ) ; B e an v . Calde r on , 163 F . 3d 1073, 1084- 86 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( f i ndi ng pr e j udi c i a l j oi nde rgi ve n l a c k of c r os s - a dm i s s i bi l i tyof

e vi de nc e a nd vi gor ous d is p u te r e g a r d in g p h y s ic a l e v id e n c e o f o n e c r im e ) . D a ni e l s a l s o a r gue s tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l r e nde r e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e by fa i l i ng t o o bj ec tt o o r m ov e t o sup pres s the P epe M ul do on ’ s bart ender’ s i n-court- 3-

i dent i fi ca t i on . T he N evada S up re m e C ou rtw as no tun re as on abl e i n rul i ng that D ani el s’ m ot i on t o sup pres s the l i neup i dent i fi ca t i on w ou l d l i kel y nothave been g ran t ed . T h e co u rtw as al so n o tu n reaso n ab l e t o h o l d th atth e o u t co m e o f th e case w ou l d n othave been di ff er enteven i f the l i neup i dent i fi ca t i on had b ee n s uppr e s s e d. D a ni e l s a l s o ha s nots how n tha tthe P e pe M ul doon’ s ba rt e nde r ’ s i ncourti dent i fi ca t i on w ou l d h ave been di sa l l ow ed had cou nsel obj ec t ed. A nd gi ven th e stren g th o f o th er ev i d en ce l i n k i n g D an i el s t o th e P ep e M u l d o o n ’ s ro b b ery, i nc l udi ng the undi s put e d pr e s e nc e of hi s f i nge rpr i nt s on the napki n us e d bythe robb er , there i s no rea sonabl e probabi l i ty thatthe ou t com e of tri al w ou l d h ave been a ny di f f e r e nte ve n i f

D a ni e l s ’ tr i a l c ouns e l s uc c e s s f ul l yobj e c t e d t o the P e pe M u ld o o n ’s b a rte n d e r ’s in - c o u rt id e n tif ic a tio n . Se e Str i c kland v . W as hi ngton , 466 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 9 4 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( c o u n s e l’s p e r f o rm a n c e is p r e

ju d ic ia l if

“th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le pr obabi l i ty tha t , butf

orc ouns e l ’ s unpr of

e s s i ona l e rr or s , the r e s ul tof the p r o c e e d in g w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t.” ) . F in a lly , w e d e n y D a n ie ls ’ m o tio n to e x p a n d th e c e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ilityto i n c l u d e Gr o u n d s 3 a n d 4 o f h i s h ab e a s p e t i t i o n . T h e d i s tr i c tc o u rtd e n i e d aC OA o n G r o u n d s 3 a n d 4 b e c au s e D a n ie ls f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te c au s e f o rh is f a ilu r e to t i m e l y pr e s e ntthos e c l a i m s i n hi s f i r s ts t a t e pe t i t i on. J ur i s t s of r e a s on w oul d not- 4-

“ fi nd i tdebat abl e w hether the di stri ctcourtw as corr ec ti n i t s proce du ra l rul i ng . ” Slack v . McD an i el , 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 7 8 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . AF F I R ME D.