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 a nd 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 a bl 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 a bl e O t i s D . W r i ght , I I , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe ** * C e ntr a l D i s tr i c tof

C a l i f or ni a , 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
MI C HA E L MADA YA G, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. MI C HA E L S . E VA NS , Wa r d e n ; A. HE DG P E T H; AT T ORNE Y G E 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. 09- 17330 D . C . N o . 4 : 0 8 -cv -0 4 9 8 9 -P JH 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 N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f C a lif o r n ia P hy l l i s J . H a m i l t on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d J ul y 12, 2011 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o r n ia B ef ore: S IL V E R M A N and G R A B E R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and W R IG H T , D i stri ct Judg e. *** 

# FI LED JU L 14 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSThe jury found Mada

yagto have c ommitt ed batter y on a prison guard a

nd convicted 1 him of: (1) batter

y by a prisoner

on a non-c onfined person pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 4501.5; and (2) battery

with a serious bodily

injury pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 243(d) . 2 A ju r y in s ta te c o u r t c o n v ic te d P e titio n e r M ic h a e l M a d a y a g , a C a lif o r n ia s ta te p r i s o n e r , o f two c o u n t s o f b a tt e r y . Ma d a y a g wa s s u b s e q u e n t l y s e n t e n c e d t o two 1
c onc ur r e ntt e r m s of

25 years t o l i f

e t o run c ons e c ut i ve l y t o hi s s e nt e nc e f orpr i or conv i ct i on s. H e app ea l s the di stri ct court ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on for aw ri tof habeas c o rp u s . W e a f

f ir m . M aday ag’ s habea s pet i t i on ra i se s three grou n d s u po n w hi ch hi s tri al coun se l
w as co n st i tu t i o n al l y i n effecti v e: (1 ) th e fai l u re t o cal l tw o p ri so n in m a te s a s d efen se w i tness es ; (2) the fa il u re to obj ec tt o evi dence of M aday ag’ s pri or cr i m i nal c o n v ic tio n s ; a n d ( 3 ) th e f a ilu r e to r e q u e s t a“d e f

e n s e o f o th e r s ” ju r y in s tru c tio n . H is p e titio n f a ils o n a ll th r e e g r o u n d s . F ir s t, th e p e r f

o r m a n c e o f

M a d a y a g ’s t r i a l c o u n s e l w a s n o t c o n s titu tio n a lly de f i c i e ntbe c a us e the de c i s i on nott o ha ve L a ve a orT ow ns e nd t a ke the w i tne s s s t a nd
w a s a n in f

o r m e d s tr a te g ic c h o ic e . Se e Str i c kland v
. W as hi ngton , 466 U . S . 668, 690 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( h o ld in g t h a t tr ia l c o u n s e l’s in f o r m e d s tr a te g ic c h o ic e s “a r e v ir tu a lly
u n c h a lle n g e a b le .” ) ; E

gg l es ton v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 798 F . 2d 374, 376 ( 9th C i r . 1986) (hol di ng thattri al coun se l no tre qu i re d t o i nt ervi ew w itn es s w here the po t ent i al
w i tness ’ vers i on s of e vent s a re fa i rl y kno w n t o cou nsel ). R eg ar d less , trial co u n se l’ s3

pe r f or m a nc e w a s notpr e

j udi c i a l be c a us e L a ve a a nd T ow ns e nd’ s t e s t i m ony w oul d not have been consi st entw i th the defense th eo ry – thatthe prosecut i on ’ s c as e l ac ked e vi de nc e of

M a da y a g a c tua l l y appr oa c hi ng a nd a s s aul t i ng the pr i s on gua r d. A c c or di ngl y , there i s no r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha tha d e i the rL a ve a orT ow ns e nd te s tif ie d th e r e s u lt w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. Se e Str i c kland , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 7 ( “I f it i s e a s i e rt o di s pos e of

a n i ne f f e c t i ve ne s s c l a i m on the gr ound o f l ack of s uf f i c i e nt prej ud i ce , w hi ch w e ex p ec t w i l l oft en be so, thatcourse shou l d b e f ol l ow ed. ”) . S ec on d, M aday ag w as no tprej ud i ce d b y hi s tri al coun se l ’ s fai l ure t o obj ec t t o a tri al exhi bi tcont ai ni ng abstra ct s of j ud gm ent of hi s pri or conv i ct i on s bec ause the m er e f ac t th atth e j u ry m ay h av e seen a l i st o f M ad ayag ’ s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n s d o e s n o t est ab l i sh a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility th a t th e ju r y w o u ld h a v e r e a c h e d a d if f e r e n t r e s u lt. I

d. L a s t l y , M a da y a g’ s tr i a l c ouns e l w a s not i ne f f e c t i ve i n f

a i l i ng t o r e que s ta “ de f

e ns e of others ” j ury i nstruct i on because he m ad e a ta ct i ca l deci si on no tt o see k j ury i ns truc t i ons c ontr a di c t i ng M a da y a g’ s t h eo ry at tr i a l tha tthe r e w a s no e vi de nc e of M a d a y a g a c tu a lly ap p r o a c h in g a n d a s s a u lti n g th e p r is o n g u a r d . Se e Str i c kland , 466 U .S . a t 6 9 0 ; W

i l l i a m s v. W

o o d f o rd , 38 4 F . 3d 56 7, 61 1-12 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( fi nd i ng that defe nse c ou nsel w as no ti neff ec t i ve for f

ai l i ng t o p re se ntev id en ce thatcont ra di ct ed th e p r im a r y d e f

e n s e th e o r y ) .4

I n l i ghtof the f

or e goi ng, a l l of M a da y a g’ s c l a i m s f a i l , a nd the c um ul a t i ve e r r or d o c tr in e c a n n o t ap p ly a s a r e s u lt. See M an cuso v. O l i varez , 2 9 2 F . 3 d 9 3 9 , 9 5 7 (9 th C i r. 20 02 ). F urtherm ore, the di stri ctcourtw as no tob l i gat ed t o con du ctan evi dent i ary hear i ng as “ the re cord re fut es [M aday ag’ s] fa ctual al l egat i on s or otherw i se prec l ud es habeas re l i ef

. ” Sc hr i r o v . L andr i

gan , 55 0 U . S . 46 5, 47 4 (20 07 ). R egar dl ess, an e vi de nt i a r y he a r i ng w a s not ne c e s s a r y a s the e xi s t i ng r e c or d w a s s uf f i c i e ntt o r e s ol ve P e t i t i o n e r ’ s c la im s . See C ul l en v. P i nh ol ster , - - - U . S . - - - - , 131 S . C t . 1388, 1398 (201 1) (hol di ng thathabeas “ re vi ew un der § 22 54 (d)( 1) i s l i m i t ed t o t he re cord that
w a s b e f o r e th e s ta te c o u r t th a t a d ju d ic a te d th e c la im o n th e m e r its ” ) . AF F I RME D.