N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GAR Y SALC EDO, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. DAVE DAVEY, W arde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 13-56661

D.C . No. 2:10-c v-03882-GHKPLA
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 Ge orge H. King, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 6, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, R

AW LINSON, a

nd B E A, C i rc uit Judge s. Gary Sa l c e do (Sa lc e do) a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision de ny ing his pe tition for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus. Sa lc e do a sse rts tha t his tria l c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive be c a

u se he fa ile d to inc lude a

pre lim ina

ry he aring tra

nsc ript a s pa

rt of 

# FIL ED JAN 04 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. 1the m otion for a ne w tria l. Sa lc e do a lso a sse rts tha t the prose c ution pre s e nte d fa lse
e vide nc e at

his tria l in viola

tion of N apuev . Illinois , 360 U.S. 264 (1959), a nd withhe ld m ate ria l im

pe a c hm e nt e vide nc e c o nc e rning its key witne ss in viola

tion of Brady v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Fina lly , Sa lc e d o c onte nds tha

t the distric t
c ourt e rre d in not holding a n e v ide ntia ry he aring. 1

1. The C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l re a sona

bly a p plie d the S

tric k land 2 pre j udic e sta nda rd in a ddre ssing Sa lc e do’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im
. Se e Mann v . Ry an , 828 F.3d 1143, 1152-57 (9th C ir. 2016). The Unite d State s Supre m e C ourt ha s e xpla ine d tha t sta te c ourt de c isions m

ust be “ give n the be ne fit of the doubt.” W

oodford v . Visc iotti , 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002). Thus, the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s c ita

tion to Stric k

land is suffic ie nt to show tha

t it a pplie d the
c orre c t pre

judic e sta nda rd, e ve n if the “ re a sona

ble proba b ility ” la ngua ge wa s om i tte d from

its a na ly sis. Se e id. (e m

pha s iz ing the “ p re sum

ption tha t sta te c ourts know a n d follow thela

w” ) (c ita tions omi tte d). Furthe r, the C a lifornia C o urt of

1 W e de c line to a ddre ss the unc e rtifie d issue s ra i se d by Sa lc e d o be c a

use he ha s not “ m a de a substa

ntia l showing of the de nia l of a c onstitutiona

l right” re ga rding thosec la im s. M

urray v . Sc hirro , 745 F.3d 984, 1002, 1015 (9th C ir. 2014) (c ita

tion a n d inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). 2 Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2Appe a l’ s pre judic e de te rm ination wa s not “ so la c king in justific ation tha t the re wa s” no “possibility

for fa irm inde d disa gre e m e n t,” be c a use the jury

wa s a ware of the fa c ts c onta ine d in thepre l im ina ry he aring tra

nsc ript. Harrington v. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011).

2. Eve n in thea

bse nc e of a

n e xplic it ruling, we

pre sum e tha

t a “ sta t e c ourt
a djudic ate d [a ] c la im

on the m e rits in thea

bse nc e of a

ny indic ation or sta

te -la w proc e d ura l princ iple s to the c ontra ry .” J ohnson v . W

illiams , 133 S.C t. 1088, 1094 (2013) (c ita

tion omitte d). He re , the e vide nc e doe s not le a d “ ve ry c le a rly ” to the
c onc lusion tha

t the sta te c ourt ina dve rte n tly

ove rlooke d Sa lc e do’ s Brady an d N apuec la im s in his sta

te ha be a s pe tition to perm it denov o re vie w. C f. Murdaugh
v . Ry an , 724 F.3d 1104, 1121-22 (9th C ir. 2013) (a pply ing de nov o re vie w of fe de ra l ha be a s c l a im

whe re “ ‘ the e vide nc e le a ds ve ry c le arly to the c onc lusion tha

t
a fe d e ra l c la im

wa s ina dve rte n tly

ove rlooke d in sta

te c ourt,’ ” e spe c ia lly

“ in light of the s tat e post-c onvic tion c ourt’ s othe rwise c are ful c onside ra t ion a nd e va luation of
e ve ry othe r c l a im in [the sta

te ha be a s] pe tition.” (quoting J ohnson , 133 S.C t. at 1097)). Thus, wem

u st c onside r whe t

he r any re a sona ble the ory c ould ha ve supporte d the sta

te c ourt de c ision. Se e Be morev . C happe ll , 788 F.3d 1151, 1161 (9th C ir. 2015). In this c a se , the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l c ould ha v e re a sona

bly 3de te rm i ne d tha t the N apueand Brady 3 c la i m s fa ile d be c a use the a l le ge d ly

fa lse sta te m e nts a nd withhe ld e v ide nc e we re c um ulat ive an d the re fore im

m ate ria l. Se e Unite d State s v . Agurs , 427 U.S. 97, 110-14 (1976); se e also United State s v . Re nzi , 769 F.3d 731, 751-52 (9th C ir. 2014). Thejury wa s a ware of the witne ss’ s a lle ge d ga

ng m e m be rship, a nd the re c ord re fle c ts no de m onstra b l y fa lse te stim ony .
AFFIRM E D.

3 It a lso would ha

v e be e n re a sona

ble for the C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l to de ny Sa lc e d o’ s Brady

c la i m on the ground tha

t Sa lc e do fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t the c la im e d e vide nc e wa s not disc lose d. Spe c ulation tha t e vide nc e wa s suppre sse d doe s not support a Brady c la im , a nd a bse nt e vide nc e that the prose c ution withhe ld e vide nc e favora

ble to Sa l c e do, his Brady c la im is c onc lusory
. Se e Runninge aglev . Ry an , 686 F.3d 758, 769 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ [T] o sta te a Brady c la im , [a pe titione r] is re quire d to do m ore tha

n m e re ly spe c ulat e ” a

bout pote ntia l ly

favora ble and m ate ria l e vide nc e .) 4