N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
THOM AS O. B ASTIAN,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. C HARLES L. R

YAN; ATTOR

NEY GENER AL FOR THE STATE OF AR IZONA, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 19-15385 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-02530-GM S
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G. M urray

Snow, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm i tte d June 15, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd B RE SS and B UM ATAY, C irc uit Judge s. Thom a s B a stia

n a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 pe tition for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 

# FIL ED JUN 22 2021 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.and § 2253, a nd we a ffirm

the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt. B e c a use the pa rtie s
are fam ilia

r with the fa c ts of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount the m he re . W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to deny a pe tition for a writ of ha

be a s
c orpus a nd a distric t c o urt’ s a p plic ation of theAntite rrorism and Effe c tive De ath Pe na lty Ac t, 28 U.S.C . § 2254, denovo, Lambe rt v . Blodge tt , 393 F.3d 943, 964–65 (9th C ir. 2004). For c la im s tha t the sta t e c ourt a djudic ate d

on the m e rits, fe de ra l c o urts m a

y not gra nt a pe tition “ unle ss the a djudic ation of thec la im
. . . re sulte d in a de c ision tha

t wa s c ontra

ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

ble a pplic ation of, c le arly e sta b l ishe d Fe de ra l la

w” or “ re sulte d in a

de c ision tha

t wa s ba se d on a

n
unre a s ona

ble de te rm i nation of thefa c ts in light of the e vide nc e pre se nte d in the Stat e c ourt proc e e ding.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). In a ddition, fe de ra l c ourts will not he ar a ha be a s c la im

if the sta te c ourt de nie d the c la im

on a n “ inde pe nde nt a

nd
a de quate ” sta

te la w proc e dura l ground, unle ss the pe titione r c an show c a use for the de fa ult a n d pre judic e from

it. Se e C oope r v . N

e v e n , 641 F.3d 322, 327 (9th C ir. 2011). I The distric t c ourt prope rly he ld tha t the sta te c ourt re a sona

bly a pplie d c le a

rly
e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w a nd did not make an unre a sona ble de te rm ination of fa c t in
c onc luding tha

t B a stia n re initia te d c onta c t

with polic e , suc h tha

t his sta te m e nts to
2the m

c ould be introduc e d unde r Edw ards v . Arizona , 451 U.S. 477, 483 (1981) a nd
re late d c a se s. An a c c use d, “ hav ing e xpre s se d his de sire to de a l with thepolic e only though c ounse l, is not subje c t to furthe r inte rrogation by the a uthoritie s until
c ounse l ha s be e n m a d e ava ila b le to him , unle ss the a c c use d him se lf initia te s furthe r
c om m unic ation, e x c ha

n g e s, or c onve rsations with the polic e .” Id. at 484–85. Although B a stia

n invoke d his right to c ounse l in his first inte rvie w, the sta

te
a ppe lla te c o urt re a sona

b ly c onc lude d tha

t he re initia

te d c onta c t be fore his subse q ue nt inte rvie w s. 1 The a

p pe lla te c ourt de t e rm i ne d tha

t the tria l c o urt ha d
m a de an a ppropria te c re dibility

de te rm ination in c re d i ting theoffic e r’ s te stim ony
a s to these c ond inte rvie w. In a ddition, the a ppe lla t e c ourt note d tha

t B a stia n
c onfirm e d in a

subse que nt inte rvie w tha t he ha d re initia

te d c onta c t be fore tha

t
se c o nd inte rvie w, a

n d tha t B a stia n ha d re c e ive d a dditional Miranda wa rnings in subse q ue nt inte rvie w s, but did not re que st a n attorne y . B e c a

use a ll the s e findings
we re ba se d on there c ord a nd, ta ke n toge the r, c ould le a d a re a s ona b le jurist to
c onc lude tha

t B a stia n ha d re initia

te d c onta c t

unde r Edw ards , we a ffirm the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt dismissing this c la im
.

1 W e re vie w the la st re a sone d sta te c ourt de c ision a d dre ssing thefe de ra l c onstitutiona

l c la im s, C

ritte nde n v . Ay e rs , 624 F.3d 943, 950 (9th C ir. 2010), whic h on this issue is the Ariz ona C ourt of Appe a ls de c ision on dire c t a ppe a l. 3II

The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t B a stia n proc e dura l ly

de fa ulte d his
c la im tha t his trial c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive in fa iling to c ha lle nge the use of a stun be lt a nd le g sha c kle s during thetria l. B a s tia n fa i le d to ra ise this c l a im until his
se c o nd post-c onvic tion re l ie f (“ PC R ” ) pe tition, a nd the sta te c ourt de nie d it a s
suc c e ssive and untim e l y an d , the re fore , pre c lude d unde r Ariz ona R ule of C rim ina l Proc e d ure 32. B a stia

n argue s on a

p pe a l tha t the sta te c ourt im

prope rly a pplie d R ule 32, be c a

use his c la im

fa l ls into a

n e xc e ption to R

ule 32 pre c lusion. W

he n
ra ising a n a de qua c y c ha lle nge a fte r the sta

t e invoke s proc e dura l de fa u lt, pe titione r ha s the burde n to show inade qua c y , a nd he m ay

do so by “ a sse rting spe c ific fa c tua l
a lle gations tha

t de m onstra

te the ina de qua c y

of the sta te proc e dure , inc luding
c ita tion to a uthority de m onstra

t ing inc onsiste nt a

pplic ation of therule .” Be n ne tt v
. Mue lle r , 322 F.3d 573, 586 (9th C ir. 2003). B a stia n c ite s no c a se whe re the sta te
c ourts pe rm itte d a

sha c kling c la im , or som e t hing substa

ntia lly sim ila r to a sha c kling c la im , to be ra ise d in a suc c e s sive PC R

pe tition. M ore ove r, a

re vie wof Ariz ona

sta te la w doe s not sugge st tha

t the rule wa s
a pplie d inc onsiste ntly

to B a stia n. Sta te la w at the tim e provide d a

n e xc e ption to R ule 32 pre c lusion for c e rta in issue s of “ suffic ie nt c onstitutiona l m a g nitude ;” issue s we re of suffic ie nt

m a gnitudeif the y

re quire d a

de fe n da nt to “ knowingly , 4volunta

rily and inte llige ntly ” wa ive the right. Ste w a rt v . Smith , 46 P.3d 1067, 1071 (Ariz . 2002) (e n ba

nc ) (c ita tion omitte d). The se inc lude d, for e xam ple , the right to c ounse l, right to a jury , a nd right to a

twe l ve -pe rson jury
. State v . Espinosa , 29 P.3d 278, 280 (Ariz . C t. App. 2001). And whe re the c la im

is for ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e , the que stion for pre c lusion is “ de te rm ine d by the nature of the right a lle g e dly a ffe c te d by c ounse l’ s ine ffe c tive pe rform anc e .” Ste w art , 46 P.3d at 1071. B ut the right to befre e from re stra i nts a

t tria l is not one

tha t m ust be knowingly

and volunta

rily wa ive d. R at

he r, re stra ints m ay

be im pose d on the de fe nda nt a fte r a judge ha s m a de spe c ific findings. Se eDe c k v . Missouri , 5 44 U.S. 622, 624 (2005). And so the re is no ba sis to c onc lude tha t it would qua

lify unde r the “ suffic i e nt c onstitutiona l m a gnitude ” e xc e ption to R ule 32 pre c lusion. The distric t c o urt c orre c tly de n ie d the c la im a s proc e dura lly de fa

ulte d in thesta

te
c ourts. 2

2 B a stia n wa ive d any sha c kling c la im

tha t is inde pe nde nt of his ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e c la im , a s he did not ra ise suc h a c la im in his ha b e a s pe tition be fore the distric t c o urt. Furthe r, B a s tia n e xpre ssly

re nounc e d a the ory

of c a use an d pre

judic e to e x c use proc e dura l de fa ult dueto ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of PC R

c ounse l unde r Martine z v . Ry a n , 566 U.S. 1 (2012). 5III

For the se re a sons, we a ffirm the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt. 3

AFFIRM E D.

3 W e de c line to e xpa

n d the C e rtific ate of Appe a la bility for B a stia

n’ s unc e rtifie d c la i m

tha t the sta te c ourt de c i sions a

re not e ntitle d to AEDPA de fe re nc e . B a s tia

n fa ils to show tha

t the Ariz ona

rule s we re ina d e quat e or a pplie d inc o nsiste ntly

to his c a se , suc h tha

t the de c isions would not be e ntitle d to de fe re nc e . Sim ila

rly , he doe s not a

ppe ar to a rgue tha t he ha s c a

use to e xc use his proc e d ura l de fa ults, nor e xpla in how a

ny pote ntia l c a

use pre j udic e d him
. W e c onc lude tha

t he ha s fa ile d to m ake a

substa ntia l showing of a

de nia l of a c onstitutiona

l right. 28 U.S.C . § 2253(b)(2). 6