N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R AYM OND M AR TIN,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. KATHLEEN ALLISON, W arde n,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 14-17270 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-00870-JAM -GGH
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 J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 17, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M ELLOY, *** C LIFTON, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s . 1. In its de c ision re

je c ting R aym o nd M artin’ s a rgum e nts on dire c t a

ppe a l, the C a l ifornia

C ourt of Appe a l did not e xplic itly a ddre ss M artin’ s c la im

tha t the 

# FIL ED NOV 30 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble M ic ha e l J. M e lloy , Unite d State s C i rc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Eighth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.Pa ge 2 of 3

prose c ution viola

te d the rule e sta

blishe d in N

apuev . Illinois , 360 U.S. 264 (1959). W e ne e d not de c ide whe the r we are re quire d to pre sum e tha t the C ourt of Appe a l
a djudic a te d the N

apue c la i m

on the m e rits, se e J

ohnson v . W

illiams , 133 S. C t. 1088, 1091–92 (2013), for e ve n unde r de nov o re v ie w M artin is not e ntitle d to
re lie f. In support of his N apue c la im , M artin a lle ge s tha t the prose c u tion knowingly introduc e d fa lse te stim ony tha t M artin dire c t e d Vinc e n t Gre gory (M artin’ s c ode fe nda n t) to shoot the

vic tim during therobbe ry

and burgla

ry . B ut unde r C a lifornia ’ s fe l ony -m

urde r rule , the jury

did not ha

v e to find tha

t M a rtin dire c te d Gre gory to shoot the

vic tim
. S

e e Pe oplev . C

hism , 58 C a l. 4th 1266, 1332 (2014). R a the r, the jury

wa s pe rm itte d to find M artin guilty of m urde r unde r the fe lony
m urde r rule if it found tha

t som e one e lse kille d the vic tim while M artin wa s
e nga ge d in c o m

m itting a robbe ry or burgla ry , a nd tha t the re wa s a

logic a l
c onne c tion be twe e n the a c t c a using the vic tim ’ s de a th a nd the robbe ry

or burgla ry . Se e Pe oplev . C

av itt , 33 C a l. 4th 187, 203 (2004). The jury found tha

t to be the
c a se , a nd the re wa s a

m ple e vide nc e supporting tha t finding. For e xam

ple , e vide nc e pla c e d M artin in thesa m e ve hic le with Gre gory

an d Sta nle y M a s on (his othe r c o-de fe nda

nt) just be fore the robbe ry and burgla

ry , a n d e vide nc e a lso pla c e d M artin in the

vic tim ’ s room whe n the vic tim wa s shot. Glove s found in the c oursePa ge 3 of 3

of the inve stiga

tion c onta ine d M artin’ s DNA, furthe r c orroborating his involve m e nt in therobbe ry and burgla

ry . Give n the am

ple e vide nc e supporting M artin’ s c onvic tion unde r the fe lony -m urde r rule , the re is no re a sona ble like lihood that the a lle ge dly

fa lse sta te m e n t a ffe c te d the jury ’ s ve rdic t. Se e N apue , 360 U.S.
a t 271. 2. W e de c line to c onside r M artin’ s unc e rtifie d issue a l le ging a

viola tion of the rule e sta

blishe d in She

ppard v . Max w e l l , 384 U.S. 333 (1966). AFFIRM E D.