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 H onor abl e B a rry T . M os kow i t z , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** the S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof C a l i f orni a , 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 L ON MAR T I N, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. KE NN E T H Q UI NN , R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 35974 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 8 -cv -0 5 3 4 4 -R JB 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 W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R ona l d B . L e i ght on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r7, 2011

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B ef ore: M cK E O W N and T A L L M A N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and M O S K O W IT Z , D i stri ct Judg e. ** L on M art i n app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4 h abea s c o rp u s p e titio n c h a lle n g in g h is ju ry c o n v ic tio n a n d 3 9 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rf ir s tdegree mu rder . M art i n chal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al and al so ar gu es that 

# FI LED DE C 30 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

the di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d by f a i l i ng t o gr a nthi s r e que s tt o e xpa nd the r e c or d a nd f or a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . §§ 1291 a nd 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f

f i rm. W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of M art i n’ s pet i t i on for habeas c orpus a nd r e vi e w f

i ndi ngs of

f a c tf orc l e a re rr or . B r ow n v. O rnos ki , 503 F . 3d 10 06 , 10 10 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). B ec ause M art i n fi l ed hi s f eder al habeas pet i t i on af t er 1996, the A E D P A gove rns hi s a c t i on. I d. ; s e e a l s o 28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) . O ur anal ys i s und er§ 2 25 4(d)(1) “ i s l i m i t ed t o the re cord thatw as before the st at e c ou rt tha ta dj udi c a t e d the c l a i m on the m e r i t s . ” C ul l e n v. P i nhol s t e r , 131 S . C t . 1388, 1 3 9 8 ( 2 0 1 1 ) . M art i n argues thathi s F ou rt ee nth A m endm entri gh tt o d ue process of l aw w as deni ed w hen the tri al courtfa i l ed, on i t s ow n i ni t i at i ve, t o o rdera c om pet ency hear i ng . N othi ng i n the re cord before the st at e tri al courtw ou l d h ave gi ven that courtre as on t o d ou btM art i n’ s c om pet ency . N ot abl y, nei ther gov ernm entcoun se l no r M art i n’ s c ou nsel perc ei ved a rea sonabl e c ause t o b el i eve thatM art i n w as in c o m p e te n t. U n ite d S ta te s v . L e w is , 9 9 1 F .2 d 5 2 4 , 5 2 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . C on se qu ent l y, the st at e app el l at e c ou rt ’ s rul i ng w as no tcontraryt o o r an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of cl earl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw , no r di d i tconst i tut e an u n r e a s o n ab le d e te rm in a tio n o f th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e r e c o r d .3

M a rt i n r a i s e s thr e e c l a i m s a l l e gi ng tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l , M i c ha e l H e ne ge n, 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 f

a i l i ng t o i nve s t i ga t e M a rt i n’ s m e nt a l i l l ne s s or req u esta co m p et en cy ev al u at i o n atv ari o u s p o i n t s b efo re an d d u ri n g tri al . B ecau se M a rtin d id n o t r a is e th e “f a ilu r e to in v e s tig a te ” p o rtio n s o f th e s e c la im in th e s ta te co u rt, th ey ar e p ro ce d u ra ll y b ar re d b y W as h . R ev . C o d e § 1 0 .7 3 .1 4 0 , W as h in g to n ’s pr ohi bi t i on a ga i ns tthe f i l i ng of s uc c e s s i ve c ol l a t e r a l a tt a c ks . W e c ons i de ronl y the po rt i on s of hi s c l ai m s r el at i ng t o h i s tri al coun se l ’ s f ai l ure t o requesta c om pet ency e v a lu a tio n . M a rtin a r g u e s th a t H e n e g e n r e n d e r e d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e b y f

a ilin g to r e q u e s t ac o m p e te n c y e v a lu a tio n . H e n e g e n h ir e d a n in v e s tig a to rto h e lp w ith a ll as p ec ts o f th e c as e ( in clu d in g M ar ti n ’s m en tal h ea lth ), o b tain ed M ar ti n ’s psyc hi atri c r eport s, had sever al di sc ussi on s w i th M art i n regardi ng hi s m ent al h e a lth , a n d h a d d is c u s s io n s w ith M a rtin ’s f a m ily r e g a r d in g M artin ’s m e n ta l h e a lth . U nde rthe s t a nda r d s e tf orth i n S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 691 (198 4), defe nse c ou nsel i s e m po w er ed t o m ake s tra t egi c dec i si on s. Itw as no tan u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f

e d e r a l law o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le d e te rm in a tio n o f

th e f a c ts f o rth e s ta te ap p e lla te c o u rt to c o n c lu d e th a t, w h ile it m ig h t h a v e b e e n p ru d e n t f o rH e n e g e n to r e q u e s t ac o m p e te n c y e v a lu a tio n , h e d id notr e nde ri ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e by f

a i l i ng t o do s o.4

M a rtin a ls o c la im s th a t H e n e g e n r e n d e r e d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e b y f

a ilin g to a de qua t e l y pr e s e nte xpe rtm e nt a l he a l th t e s t i m ony a tthe pr e tr i a l he a r i ngs r e ga r di ng th e ad m i ssi b i l i ty o f M art i n ’ s co n fessi o n t o p o l i ce o ffi cers. T h i s cl ai m fai l s b ecau se M art i n canno tdem on stra t e thatH enegen’ s f ai l ure t o p re se ntpsyc hi atri c e vi dence i n s upportof

the m ot i on t o s uppr e s s pr e j udi c e d the de f

e ns e . I d. a t687. T he p r e s e n c e o f

am e n ta l illn e s s o rim p a irm e n t is n o t a lo n e s u f f ic ie n t to f

in d th a t a w a i ve rw a s notvol unt a ry , know i ng a nd i nt e l l i ge nt . I n a ddi t i on, a l l obj e c t i ve s i gns obs e rve d by the de t e c t i ve s i ndi c a t e d tha tM a rt i n w a s l uc i d, c ohe r e nta nd coop er at i ve du ri ng the course of the i nt errogat i on . M art i n h as no tes t abl i shed that e v e n w ith p s y c h ia tr ic e v id e n c e , h is s ta te m e n ts to th e p o lic e w o u ld h a v e n e c e s s a r ily be e n s uppr e s s e d, norha s he de m ons tr a t e d tha ti tw a s obj e c t i ve l y unr e a s onabl e f or the s t a t e c ourtt o r e a c h thi s c onc l us i on. M a rt i n ne xta s s e rt s tha the w a s pr e j udi c e d by H e ne ge n’ s f a i l ur e t o pr ovi de expertt es t i m on y attri al re gardi ng ho w M art i n’ s m ent al i l l ness w ou l d h ave a ff ec t ed th e r e l i ab i l i ty o f

h i s s t a t e me n t s t o th e p o l i c e . A s th e W a s h i n g t o n St a t e Su p r e me C ourtr e a s one d, M art i n m i s t a ke nl y be l i e ve s tha ti tw oul d ha ve be e n s uf f i c i e ntf or a n e x p e rt to o p in e th a t M a rtin s u f f e r e d f r o m s c h iz o p h r e n iaa n d p s y c h o tic d e lu s io n s . G iv e n th e te s tim o n y o f M a rtin ’s s te p f

a th e ra n d th e tw o e y e w itn e s s e s to the m ur de r , i ti s notr e a s onabl y pr obabl e tha tthe j ury w oul d ha ve r e a c he d a5

d if f e r e n t o u tc o m e if

M a rtin ’s c o n f

e s s io n h a d b e e n s h o w n to b e u n r e liab le . M a rtin h a s n o t d e m o n s tr a te d th a t h is c o u n s e l’s f a ilu r e to p r e s e n t p s y c h ia tr ic e v id e n c e to un derm i ne the re l i abi l i ty of M art i n’ s c on fe ss i on const i tut ed i neff ec t i ve as si st ance o f c o u n s e l. F i nal l y, M art i n argues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n fi nd i ng thatan e v i d e n t i a ry h e a r i n g a n d e x p a n s i o n o f th e r e c o r d w e r e b a rr e d u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 (e). T h e S u p rem e C o u rtrei t erat ed i n P i n h o l st er th at§ 2 2 5 4 (e)(2 ) i m p o ses a l i m i t at i on on the di sc re t i on of fe dera l di stri ctcourt s t o t ake new evi dence i n an evi dent i ary heari ng . 13 1 S . C t . at14 00 -01. A n evi dent i ary heari ng i s notre qu i re d on i s s ue s tha tc a n be r e s ol ve d by r e f e r e nc e t o the s t a t e c ourtr e c or d. S c hr i r o v. L andri gan, 55 0 U . S . 46 5, 47 4 (20 07 ). M a rt i n mo v e d t o e x p a n d th e r e c o r d t o i n c l u d e ad e c l a r a t i o n f r o m a ps y c hi a tr i s ta nd the e xpe rtopi ni on of a n a tt orne y . M a rt i n c a nnote s t abl i s h tha the di l i ge nt l y s oughtt o de ve l op the f a c tua l ba s i s f

orhi s c l a i m , a nd § 2254 thus pr e c l ude s a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng ore xpa ns i on of the r e c or d. S e e W i l l i a m s v. T ay l or, 52 9 U . S . 42 0, 43 5 (20 00 ). M a rt i n a l s o s e e ks t o e xpa nd the r e c or d t o i nc l ude hi s pr i s on tr e a tm e nt r e c or ds f r om K i t s ap C ounty J a i l . T he i nf orm a t i on i n the m e di c a l r e c or ds i s not s uf f i c i e ntt o m e e tthe c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng s t a nda r d i m pos e d by the A E D P A . 286

U . S . C . § 2 25 4(e) (2). T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n con cl ud i ng thatM art i n fai l ed to m e e t h is b u r d e n a n d th a t a n e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g w a s n o t r e q u ir e d . AF F I RME D.