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

NELL WAFER , Pe t i tione r - Appe l la

nt, v. ANTHONY HEDGPETH, W arde n,

R e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-56933 D.C . No. 2:04-c v-05694-AHSAJW 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 A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 3, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, FISHER

and B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s . Anthony W a fe r a ppe a ls the dism issa l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s pe tition c ha lle n g ing his c o nvic tions for robbery , burgla ry , a ssa ult a nd m urde r in c onne c tion with a

string of sma ll busine ss robbe rie s . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 2253, were vie wde novo, se eW hite v . Marte l , 601 F.3d 882, 883 (9th C ir. 2010), a

nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED OCT 01 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

n d is not pre c e d e nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.1. W e ne e d not de te rm ine whe the r W a fe r’ s c l a im unde r Fare tta v . C alifornia , 422 U.S. 806 (1975), wa s proc e dura lly de fa ulte d. B e c a

use the c la im wa s a ddre sse d by the distric t c o urt a nd ha s be e n fully

brie fe d, we e xe rc ise our disc re tion to deny the c la im on them e rits. Se eRunninge aglev . Ry an , 686 F.3d 758, 777 n.10 (9th C ir. 2012) (c iting 28 U.S.C . § 2254(b)(2) a nd Gatlin v . Madding , 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th C ir. 1999)). Although W a fe r a sse rts his Februa ry 1999 Fare tta re que s t wa s une quivoc a l unde r Unite d State

s v . He rnande

z , 203 F.3d 614, 621-23 (9th C ir. 2000), abrogated in part by

Indiana v . Edw ards , 554 U.S. 164 (2008), a nd Adams v . C arroll , 875 F.2d 1441, 1444-45 (9th C ir. 1989), theC a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s c ontra ry c onc lusion wa s a

re a sona ble de te rm ination of thefa c ts unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(2). S

e eSte nson v . Lambe r t , 504 F.3d 873, 882-84 (9th C ir. 2007). W a fe r m a de the re que st in thec onte xt of a substitution m

otion; his c le ar pre fe re nc e wa s a ppointm e nt of ne w c ounse l; he did not re ne w his re que st be twe e n June 1999 and Oc tobe r 2000, thefirst da y of tria l; a

nd the tria l c ourt, whic h wa s in thebe st position to a sse ss W a fe r’ s words in c onte xt, c onc lude d he did not re a lly wa nt to re pre se nt him se lf. Whe n W a fe r’ s re que st to repre se nt him s e lf is c onside re d in the c onte xt of thee ntire he aring, thesta te c ourt of a

ppe a l re a sona

bly c onc lude d the re que s t wa s e quivoc a l. 2The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s c onc lusion tha t W a fe r’ s se c o nd Fare tta re que s t, m a de on thefirst da y of tria l, wa s untim e ly

wa s ne ithe r c ontra

ry to nor a n unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of c l e arly

e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). TheSupre m e C ourt ha s ne ve r a ddre sse d whe t he r suc h a re que st is tim e ly , se eSte nson , 504 F.3d a t 884-85; Marshall v. Tay lor , 395 F.3d 1058, 1060- 61 (9th C ir. 2005), a

nd Ninth C irc uit c a se la

w holding on dire c t

a p pe a l tha t a re que s t is time ly

if m a de be fore a

jury is im pa ne le d , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Arlt , 41 F.3d 516, 519 (9th C ir. 1994), doe s not c ontrol under § 2254(d)(1). 2. W a fe r ha s not e sta

blishe d c a use and pre

judic e to e xc use the proc e dura l de fa ult of his ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of tria l c ounse l (IATC ) c l a im . Unde r Martine z v . Ry an , 132 S. C t. 1309, 1318 (2012), ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e of postc onvic tion re vie w (PC R) c ounse l c an e sta blish c a use to e x c u se proc e d

ura l de fa ult of a n IATC c la im whe re (1) PC R

c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive unde r S tric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984), in failing to raise the c la im in a prisone r’ s initial sta

te ha be a s pe tition a nd (2) the unde rly ing IATC c la i m ha s som e m e rit. He re , the re c ord shows trial c ounse l c onsulte d a c a usation e xpe rt be fore tria l but did not c a ll a n e xpe rt at tria l , inste a d re ly ing on c ross e xam ination of the prose c ution’ s e xpe rt witne s se s to c a st doubt on the c a use of the vic t im ’ s de ath. Tria l c ounse l , the re fore , a ppe ars to ha

ve m a de a

re a sona ble ta c tic a l de c ision to proc e e d without a n e xpe rt, 3distinguishing this c a s e from those upon whic h W a fe r re lie s. C f. Dunc an v . Ornosk i , 528 F.3d 1222, 1235-36 (9th C ir. 2008) (de fe nse c ounse l fa ile d e ve n to c onsult a n e xpe rt, a nd thus had no ba sis for forgoing a n e xpe rt at

tria l); C aro v . W oodford , 280 F.3d 1247, 1255-56 (9th C ir. 2002) (sa m e ). W a fe r, the re fore , ha s not shown PC R

c ounse l provide d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e by fa iling to raise an IATC c la im in W a fe r’ s initial sta

te ha be a s pe tition. 3. W a fe r a l so ha s not shown c a use and pre

judic e to e x c u se the proc e dura l de fa ult of his c la im

unde r Batson v . K

e n tuc k y , 476 U.S. 79 (1986). “ Ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c an c onstitute c a use to e xc use a proc e dura l de fa ult only if the pe titione r ha d a

c onstitutiona

l right to c ounse l in theproc e e ding in which the de fa ult oc c urre d.” Smith v . Idaho , 392 F.3d 350, 357 (9th C ir. 2004) (c iting C ole man v . Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 752-53 (1991)). He re , W a fe r ha d no right to c ounse l in se e king disc re tiona ry re vie w from

the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt, so his c ounse l’ s fa ilure to ra ise his Batson c la im in tha t forum doe s not e s ta

blish c a use . Se eid. Although W a fe r c ould e sta blish c a use by showing tha

t he should not be c ha rge d with thea c ts or omissions of his a ttorne y , se eMaple

s v . Thomas , 132 S. C t. 912, 922-24 (2012), he ha s ne ithe r m a de nor atte m pte d to m ake tha

t showing he re . For the se re a sons, thejudgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is AFFIRM E D. 4* * *

W a fe r’ s unoppose d m otion to file an ove rsiz e d le tte r brie f (Dkt. 40), file d August 25, 2015, is G RANT E D . C ounse l is a dm o nishe d, howe ve r, for filing the m otion la te and justifying thelate m otion by pointing to his inc orre c t c onstruc tion of the word a

n d pa ge lim its im

p ose d by the c ourt.

5