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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

Th e H o n o r ab l e Ri c h a r dM i l l s , Se n i o rD i s tr i c tJ u d g e f o rth e U . S. ** D i s tr i c tC ourtf

orthe C e ntr a l D i s tr i c tof I l l i noi s , s i tt i ng byde 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 K A R E N D E N IS E C H A D E S , throu gh her N ex tF ri en d M ari e G al l eg o s, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. M A R Y L A T T I M O R E , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 55442 D. C . No . 5 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 6 6 8 - GH KF MO 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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G e or ge H . K i ng, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d and S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r16, 2011

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : W . F L E T C H E R a n dR A W L I N S O N , C ir c u it J u d g e s , a n dM I L L S ,

S eni or D i stri ctJudg e. ** P etit io n er -A p p ellan t K ar en D en ise C h ad es ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s di sm i ss al of her 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4 p et i t i on for w ri tof habeas corpus. C hades 

# FI LED NO V 22 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

claim s th er e w as in su ff

icien t ev id en ce p re se n ted at trial t o su p p o rt th e ju ry ’s c o n v ic tio n o f

m u r d e rin th e f

ir s t d e g r e e . W e a f

f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. T he U ni t e d S t a t e s S upr e m e C ourtha s he l d tha t“ the D ue P r oc e s s C l aus e of th e F o u rt een th A m en d m en tp ro t ect s a d efen d an ti n a cri m i n al case ag ai n st conv i ct i on ‘ exce ptup on proo f bey on d a re as on abl e dou btof every f ac tnece ss ary t o con st i tut e the cr i m e w i th w hi ch he i s c harged. ’ ” J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 4 4 3 U . S. 307, 315 ( 1979) ( quot i ng I n r e W in s h ip , 397 U . S . 358, 364 ( 1970) ) . S e c t i on 2254 pe t i t i one r s r a i s i ng J

ac k s on c la im s f

a c e c o n s id e r ab le h u r d le s . See D avis v . W o o d f o rd , 3 8 4 F . 3 d 6 2 8 , 6 3 9 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e rev i ew i n g co u rtm u stfi rst

“ c ons i de rthe e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the prosec ut i on , ” and then d et erm i ne w hether, base d o n thatevi dence, any “ ra t i on al tri erof fa ctcoul d h ave f ou nd proo f of gui l tbeyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” U ni ted S ta tes v . N

e v ils , 598 F . 3d 1158, 1164 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( c i t i ng J ac k s on , 44 3 U . S . at 3 1 9 ) . T h e d e f

e r e n c e r e q u ir e d u n d e rth e A n tite rr o r is m a n dE f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t ( “A E D P A ” ) is ap p lie d o n to p o f th is a lr e a d yd e f

e r e n tia l s ta n d a r do f

r e v ie w . See J ua n H. v. A l len , 4 0 8 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 7 4 - 7 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . U n d e rA E D P A , a fe dera l courtm aygranthabeas re l i ef on l y i f the st at e c ou rt ’ s dec i 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 w as3

“ ba s e d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e i n the S t at e co u rtp ro ceed i n g . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ). “ F actu al d et erm i n at i o n s m ad e b y a s t a t e c ourta r e pr e s um e d t o be c orr e c t , a nd the pe t i t i one rha s the bur de n of r e b u ttin g th is p r e s u m p tio n b yc le a ra n dc o n v in c in g e v id e n c e .” Y ba rra v. McD an i el , 6 5 6 F .3 d 9 8 4 , 9 8 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) ( c itin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) ) . W e a r e b o u n d b yas ta te ’s in te rp r e ta tio n o f its o w n la w s . Hi m e s v . T hom ps on , 336 F . 3d 848, 852 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( c i t i ng So uch v. Scha i vo , 28 9 F . 3d61 6, 62 1 (9th C i r. 20 02 )) . In eval uat i ng an i nsuffi ci encyof the evi dence cl ai m , the re vi ew i ng court “m a yn o t s u b s titu te its ju d g m e n t f o rth a t o f th e ju ry ” a n dth u s m a yb e r e q u ir e dto up ho l d a conv i ct i on thati t“ bel i eves t o b e m i st aken. ” Ca v a z o s v . Sm ith , 5 6 5 U . S.

__ , 20 11 W L 51 18 82 6, at*1 (201 1). U n d e rC a lif

o rn iala w , a“w illf

u l, d e lib e r a te , a n dp r e m e d ita te d ” k illin g is m ur de ri n the f

i r s tde gr e e . C a l . P e na l C ode § 189. “ P r e m e di t a t e d” m e a ns “ thought ov eri n adv ance ” r ather than “ spon t aneous. ” P e o p le v . Ko o n tz , 46 P . 3d 335, 361 ( C a l. 2 0 0 2 ) ; P eopl e v . P er ez , 83 1 P . 2d 11 59 , 11 69 (C al . 19 92 ). “ D el i bera t e” m eans “ re sul t i ng fr om care ful tho ug htand w ei gh i ng of consi dera t i on s” ra ther than

“ hasty, ” “ i m petuo us, ” “ ra sh, ” or “ i m pu l si ve. ” P er ez , 8 3 1 P .2 da t 1 1 6 9 . P r e m e d ita tio n a n d d e lib e r a tio n c a n o c c u rin ab r ie f p e r io do f

tim e . P eopl e v . T hom ps on , 2 3 1 P .3 d 2 8 9 , 3 2 1 ( C a l. 2 0 1 0 ) ; D r a y de n v . W

h ite , 232 F . 3d 704, 7104

(9th C i r. 20 00 ). “ T he t es ti s nott i m e, bu tre fl ec t i on . T ho ug ht s m ayfol l ow ea ch other w i th g re atrapi di ty and col d, ca l cul at ed j ud gm entm aybe arri ved atqu i ckl y. ” T hom ps on , 231 P . 3d a t321 ( quot i ng P e ople v . O s band , 9 1 9 P .2 d6 4 0 , 6 8 8 ( C a l. 19 96 )) . W e r evi ew the l as tre as on ed st at e c ou rtdeci si on i n thi s c as e, the un pu bl i shed o p in io n o f

th e C a lif

o rn iaC o u rt o f

A p p e a l. Se e B r o w n v . H o r e ll , 644 F . 3d 969, 978 ( 9th C i r . 2011) . T he c ourtof appe a l e xa m i ne d the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l a nd f o u n d th a t it w a s s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt th e ju ry ’s c o n v ic tio n o f f ir s t- d e g r e e m u r d e r . R e s ol vi ng, a s w e m us t , a l l c onf l i c t i ng f a c tua l i nf

e r e nc e s i n f

a vorof the p r o s e c u tio n , w e c a n n o t s a yth e c o u rt o f ap p e a l’s d e te rm in a tio n w a s o b je c tiv e ly u n r e a s o n ab le . T h e ju ryh e a r d e v id e n c e o f m o tiv e a n dc o n s c io u s n e s s o f g u ilt. F urtherm ore, the m anner of ki l l i ng –l i gature s trang ul at i on prec eded by a s ever e b e a tin g – s u g g e s te d d e lib e r a tio n a n da n in te n t to k ill. Se e P e ople v . B oni l las , 771 P . 2d 84 4, 86 4 (C al . 19 89 ). T he j ury w as al so pres ent ed w i th evi dence that un derm i ned C hades’ cr edi bi l i ty and confl i ct ed w i th h ert es t i m on y a ttri al . C hades ha s poi nt e d t o e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l tha ts upport s he rthe oryof the c a s e , but s h e c a n n o t s u c c e e d o n h e rin s u f f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e c la im u n d e rth e d o u b ly d eferen t i al st an d ard o f rev i ew th atw e m u stap p l y. A FFI R M ED .