N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOHN HAR OLD LUEB B ER S,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. C ALIFOR

NIA DEPAR TM ENT OF C ORREC TIONS AND REHAB ILITATION; JAM ES R OB ER TSON, W arde n, Sola no Sta te Prison, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-17566 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-02348-M C E-KJN
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 M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h 9, 2022 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, M c KEOW N, a nd GOULD, C irc uit Judge s . Pe titione r John Ha

rold Lue bbe rs a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his ha be a s pe tition under 28 U.S.C . § 2254. W e re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a 

# FIL ED
MAR 15 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.§ 2254 pe tition denovo. C a rte r v . Dav is , 946 F.3d 489, 501 (9th C ir. 2019). The Antite rrorism

and Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty Ac t of 1996 (“ AEDPA” ) a pplie s he re . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2253(a). W e a ffirm . B e c a use the pa rtie s
are fam ilia

r with the fa c tua l a

nd proc e dura l history , we ne e d not re c ount it here . 1. W e de c line to c onside r pe titione r’ s c la im tha t the tota lity

of tria l
c ounse l’ s c onduc t e ntire ly fa ile d to subje c t the prose c ut ion’ s c a se to m e a n ingful
a dve rsaria l te sting under Unite d State s v . C ronic , 466 U.S. 648 (1984), be c a use the issue wa s not pre se nte d to thedistric t c ourt a nd wa s ra ise d for the first tim e on
a ppe a l. Smith v

. Ric hards , 569 F.3d 991, 995 (9th C ir. 2009). 2. The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l re a sona bly de nie d pe titione r’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la i m

c onc e rning tria l c ounse l’ s c onc e ssion of inte nt to kill a

nd m a lic e in his c losing a rgum e nt. The c ourt re a sona bly c onc lude d that tria l c ounse l’ s de c ision to “ a dm it[] what he ha d to a dm it” to buy c re dibility with thejury

wa s a ta c tic a l de c ision a

nd the re fore subje c t to a

“ strong pre s um ption” of “ the e xe rc ise of profe ssiona l judgm e nt.” Yarborough v . Ge ntry , 540 U.S. 1, 8 (2003). The de c ision wa s a

re a s ona ble a pplic ation of S

tric k land v

. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). AEDPA de fe re nc e the re fore a pplie s a nd ba rs re lie f. 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). 3. The C a lifornia Supe rior C ourt re a sona bly de nie d pe titione r’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la i m

a s to c ounse l’ s c onduc t at tria l. The c ourtde nie d pe titione r’ s c la im tha t his trial attorne y

wa s ine ffe c tive for not introduc ing De te c tive Stra sse r’ s re port be c a use it c onstitute d ina dm issiblehe arsay unde r state la w, a c onc lusion weare bound to follow. Se eBradshaw v . Ric he y , 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) (“ [A] sta

te c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of sta te la w . . . binds a

fe de ra l c ourt sitting in ha

be a s c orpus.” ). Sim ila rly , the C a lifornia Supe rior C ourt’ s c onc lusion tha t the pre lim ina

ry
re port of psy c hiatrist Dr. Sc h a ffe r wa s ina dm issible , is a sta te la w que stion tha

t is not c ogniz a

ble in a fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition. Id. To the e xte nt pe titione r now c la im s tha t his a ttorne y wa s ine ffe c tive for fa iling to c a ll Dr. Sc ha ffe r a s a witne ss, a

fa ir re a ding of thepre lim ina ry re port indic ate s tha

t it c onta ine d both he lpful a nd da m a ging e vide nc e a s to pre m e dita tion— the c e ntra l issueat tria l. “ [S] trate gic c hoic e s m a de [by c ounse l]
a fte r thorough inve stiga

tion . . . a re virtua lly

unc ha l le nge a

b le .” Stric k

land, 466 U.S. at 690. A c hoic e not to pre se n t te stim ony tha t would open the door to the introduc tion of da

m a ging e vide nc e is a

strate gic c hoic e e n title d to de fe re n c e unde r Stric k land
. C arte r , 946 F.3d a

t 519. W e a ffirm

the judgm e nt of the distric t c o urt. AFFIRM E D.