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 pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e J a m e s D a l e T odd, S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge ** * f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof T e nne s s e e , 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 T HO MAS J OH N S MI T HS ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. D A R R E L L G . A D A M S , W a r de n; J EANN E S . W OO DFORD; ATTORNEY GE NE R AL OF T HE S T AT E OF C AL I F ORNI A, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 15273 D . C . N o. C V - 01- 01373- GE B / DA D 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 o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G a r l a nd E . B urr e l l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J ul y 16, 2010 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: H U G and M . S M IT H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and T O D D , S eni or D i stri ctJudg e. *** 

# FI LED SEP 23 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

T hom a s S m i ths on ( “ P e t i t i one r ” ) , aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s c orpus pe t i t i on c ha l l e ngi ng hi s l i f e s e nt e nc e f

orf i r s tde gr e e f

e l ony m ur de r , a tt e m pt e d r obbe ry , a nd be i ng a c onvi c t e d f

e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s habe a s pe t i t i on de novo, a nd l ook t o the l a s tr e a s one d s t a t e c our tde c i s i on a s the b a s is f o rth e s ta te c o u r t ju d g m e n t. C o o k v. Sch ri ro , 53 8 F . 3d 10 00 , 10 15 (9th C i r. 2008) . B e c aus e P e t i t i one rf i l e d hi s habe a s pe t i t i on a f t e rA pr i l 24, 1996, the A nt i t errori sm and E ff

ec t i ve D ea th P enal ty A ct(“ A E D P A ”) appl i es . U nd er A E D P A , w e m ayon l y granta habeas pet i t i on i f the st at e c ou rtdeci si on w as

“ contraryt o, or i nv ol ved an u nrea sonabl e app l i cat i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as det erm i ned b y the S up re m e C ou rtof the U ni t ed S t at es ” or “ base d o n a 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 in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d in th e S ta te c o u r t p r o c e e d in g .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . W e a f f irm . I . E vi d e n c e of

P r i or C on vi c t i on P et i t i on ercont ends thathe w as deni ed du e proces s of l aw w hen the tri al c our tde ni e d hi s m ot i on t o s a ni t i z e the a dm i s s i on of hi s pr i orbur gl a ry c onvi c t i on. T he evi dence w as ac com pani ed by a l i m i t i ng i nstruct i on t o the j ury and w as a dm i tt e d t o pr ove the pr i orf e l ony c onvi c t i on e l e m e ntof hi s f e l on i n pos s e s s i on of af i r e a rm c ha r ge . D ue pr oc e s s i s notvi ol a t e d w he n e vi de nc e of apr i orf e l ony3

conv i ct i on i s a dm i tt ed t o p rove a nece ss ary e l em entof a c ri m e and the j ury re ce i ves al i m i t i ng i nstruct i on “ thati tshou l d n otconsi der the pri or conv i ct i on as any e vi dence of the defendant ’ s gui l ton the charge on w hi ch he w as bei ng tri ed. ” Spe nc e rv . T

ex as , 38 5 U . S . 55 4, 55 8 (19 67 ). Juri es ar e pre sum ed t o fol l ow j ury in s tru c tio n s . Se e id . a t 5 6 1 ; H o vey v. Ayers , 458 F . 3d 892, 913 ( 9th C i r . 2006) ( “W e p r e s u m e th a t ju r ie s f o llo w th e irin s tru c tio n s .” ) . H e r e , th e C a lif

o rn iaC o u r t o f

A p p e a l h e ld th a t P e titio n e r ’s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts w e r e notvi ol a t e d by the a dm i s s i on of the e vi de nc e be c aus e the pr i orf e l ony conv i ct i on w as re qu i re d b y s ec t i on 28 (f ) of the C al i forni a C on st i tut i on and the j ury re ce iv ed a lim it in g in stru ctio n . W e h o ldth at th e C alifo rn ia C o u rt o f A p p ea l’ s deci si on denyi ng P et i t i on er ’ s m ot i on t o sani t i ze w as no tcontraryt o, or an 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 S u p r e m e C o u r t la w . See Sp ence r , 385 U . S . a t558. II . In ef

fe ct i ve A ss i st an ce of C ou n se l P e t i t i one ra r gue s tha ttr i a l c ouns e l ’ s f a i l ur e t o m ove t o s e ve rthe c ha r ge of f e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm f r o m th e r e s t o f

th e c h a r g e s u n d u ly p r e

ju d ic e d h im by a l l ow i ng the j ury t o he a re vi de nc e of hi s pr i orf

e l ony bur gl a ry c onvi c t i on. T he S ix th A m e n d m e n t r e q u ir e s e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l. Stri cklan d v.4

W as hi ngton , 466 U . S . 668, 684- 85 ( 1984) . T o e s t abl i s h i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of c o u n s e l, P e titio n e rm u s t d e m o n s tr a te th a t h is c o u n s e l’s p e r f o rm a n c e w a s b o th o b je c tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le a n d p r e ju d ic ia l to h is d e f

e n s e . Se e id . a t687- 88. H e r e , th e C a lif

o rn iaC o u r t o f

A p p e a l h e ld th a t P e titio n e rw a s u n ab le to e s t abl i s h pr e

j udi c e be c aus e ( 1) the j ury r e c e i ve d al i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on, ( 2) the pr i or fe l on y e vi dence w as t oo di ss i m i l arfr om the other c harges t o i gn i t e pre j ud i ci al fe el i ng s, and (3) the evi dence on the other c harges w as strong enou gh t o sup po rt co n v i ct i o n reg ard l ess. W e hol d tha tthe C a l i f orni aC our tof

A ppe a l ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng P e t i t i one r ’ s i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m w a s notc ontr a ry t o, or a n 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 S u p r e m e C o u r t la w . Se e id . at 697. II I. S u ff

i ci en cy of E vi d en ce P e t i t i one rc ont e nds tha tthe e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ga i ns thi m w a s i ns uf f i c i e nt t o s uppor thi s f

i r s tde gr e e m ur de ra nd a tt e m pt e d r obbe ry c onvi c t i ons a nd the r o b b e ry s p e c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e f i n d i n g . F o rs u f

f i c i e n c y o f

e v i d e n c e c l a i m s we c ons i de r“ w he the r , a f

t e rvi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the p r o s e c u tio n , any r a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) .5

“ [A ] fe dera l habeas corpus courtfa ce d w i th a re cord of hi st ori ca l fa ct s that s u p p o r ts c o n f

lic tin g in f

e r e n c e s m u s t p r e s u m e – e v e n if it d o e s n o t a f

f irm a tiv e ly appe a ri n the r e c or d–tha tthe tr i e rof f a c tr e s ol ve d a ny s uc h c onf l i c t s i n f a vorof the prosec ut i on . ” Id . at32 6. “ T he fe dera l habeas sc hem e l ea ves pri m ary r e s p o n s ib ility w ith th e s ta te c o u r ts f o rth e s e ju d g m e n ts , a n d au th o r iz e s f e d e r a lcourti nt ervent i on on l y w hen a st at e- courtdeci si on i s obj ec t i vel y unrea sonabl e. ” W o o d fo rd v . V is c io tti , 5 3 7 U .S . 1 9 , 2 7 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . A tt e m pt e d r obbe ry unde rC a l . P e na l C ode § 211 r e qui r e s tha tthe de f e nda nt h a rb o rth e s p e c if

ic in te n t to c o m m it th e c r im e a n d c o m m it ad ir e c t a c t to w a r d s its c o m m is s io n . H er e, subst ant i al evi dence s up po rt ed P et i t i on er ’ s a tt em pt ed robb ery conv i ct i on . In fa ct , the evi dence s ug gest ed thatthe robb ery w as com pl et ed. A ft er arri vi ng atthe S pence hom e and i m m edi at el y bef ore the shoo t i ng , the vi ct i m had at leas t $ 8 5 0 in ca sh o n h is p er so n , w h ich h e s h o w ed to o th er s a n d in P etit io n er ’s pr e s e nc e . H ow e ve r , w he n e m e r ge nc y pe r s onne l a rr i ve d a tthe s c e ne , the r e w a s no m one y i n the vi c t i m ’ s pos s e s s i on. W hi l e a tthe S pe nc e hous e , P e t i t i one rke ptthe v ic tim in h is s ig h t a n d c o a x e d tw o o th e ro c c u p a n ts to le a v e th e h o u s e w ith i ncon si st entj ust i fi ca t i on s. H e pre vi ou sl y off er ed them $5 0 i f they w ou l d return and g i ve hi m a r i de i n thi rty m i nu t es , ye thad n everoffe re d such a l ar ge sum for a6

ri d e. E v i d en ce i n d i cat ed th atP et i t i o n er sh o tth e v i ct i m i n th e n eckfro m cl o se rang e. P et i t i on er ’ s s t at em ent s a ft erhe w as det ai ned i nd i ca t e thatthe shoo t i ng w as a c c i de nt a l buttha ti tw a s i n f ur the r a nc e of

the r obbe ry . T he C a l i f orni aC our tof A pp ea l ’ s dec i si on af

fi rm i ng P et i t i on er ’ s a tt em pt ed robb ery c on vi ct i on and rob bery s p e c ia l c ir c u m s ta n c e c o n v ic tio n w a s n o t c o n tr a ry to , o ra n o b je c tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , f e d e r a l la w . Se e J

ac k s on , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 1 9 ; W o o d f o rd , 5 3 7 U .S . a t 2 5 . C a lif o rn iaP e n a l c o d e § 1 8 9 m a n d a te s th a t “[ a ]ll m u r d e r. . . w h ic h is com m i tt ed i n the perpetra t i on of, or att em ptt o p erpetra t e . . . robb ery . . . i s m urder of the f i r s tde gr e e . ” T he C a l i f

orni aC our tof

A ppe a l ’ s de c i s i on tha ts uf f i c i e nt ev id en ce ex isted to su p p o rt th e a tt em p ted ro b b er y, w h ich su p p o rted P etit io n er ’s fe l on y m urder convi ct i on w as no tcontraryt o, or an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of, f e d e r a l la w . Se e J

ac k s on , 443 U . S . a t319. AF F I RME D.