N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

KENNETH H. SHOC KM A N, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,

v. TIM PER EZ a

nd XAVIER

B E C ER R

A, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-55195 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-01946-H-JM A

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M a rily n L. Huff, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 6, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, ** Distric t Judge

. 

# FIL ED
N OV 22 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.

** The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm a n, Unite d Sta t e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.Ke nne th Shoc km a n wa s a rre ste d a fte r he a nd his c o-de fe n d a nt w e re c a ught in

a s ting o pe ra t ion a tte m

p ting to se ll m e tha

m phe ta m ine

. The c o -de fe nda nt wa s c a rry ing the m e th, whic h w a s wra

ppe d in a bla c k c oc k

ta il na pkin— a distinc tive pa c ka ging for drugs tha t one of the offic e rs i nvolve d h a d ne v e r se e n in his e xpe rie nc e with ove r 500 drug c a se s. Polic e the n found m e th, drug pa ra phe rna l ia , a nd b la c k c oc kta i l na pkins a t Shoc km a n’ s hom e . Shoc km a n re

je c t e d a ple a o ffe r of 32 m o n ths. He c hose inste a d to go to tria l notwi t h sta

nding c om

pe l ling e vide nc e of guilt, a c h o ic e tha t ultim a te ly le d
to a se nte nc e of 10 y e a rs’ im p risonm e nt. Se ve n y e a

rs be fore the a tte m

p te d sa l e t

ha t re sulte d in t

he c onvi ct i o n s h e
c ha lle nge s he re , Shoc km a n ha d be e n c o nvic te d of posse ssing m et h f o r sa le

— a
c onvic tion tha t Shoc km a n ’ s c ounse l m a na ge d to e xc lude f r o m t h e tria l a s unduly pre j udic i a l. The prose c utor none the le ss re c e ive d a c a s e file for this 2002 c onvic tion just a s Shoc km a n wa s t e stify i ng. The file r ev eal e d tha t Shoc km a n ha d a lso wra ppe d

m e th in c oc kta il na

pkins during the 2002 offe nse

— surprising both the prose c utor a n d Shoc km a n’ s c ounse l, who wa s a wa re of the of f en s e bu t ha d not i nve stiga te d the de ta ils. Sole ly be c a

use of the de la

y e d disc losure , t h e t r i al judge a ga in prohibite d the prose c ution from using the fa c t a nd c ircu m s t anc e s of the 2002 c onvic t ion, a lthough he d id a llow Shoc km a n’ s c o-de fe nda n t to c ross-e xa m ine Shoc k m a n on de ta ils

2unde rly ing the c onvic tion, i n cl u ding the na pkin pa tte rn. During this c rosse xa m ina tion, Shoc km a n de nie d tha t his e a rlie r posse ssion ha d be e n for sa le

. The tria l judge then rule d t

ha t Shoc km a n ha d “ ope n e d the door” a nd a l lowe d the prose c ution
to e lic it furthe r de ta ils a nd the spe c ific fa c t t ha t Shoc km a n ha d a prior c onvic tion for posse s sing m e tha

m phe t a m ine

. Shoc km a n wa s found guilty

. Afte r e xha u sting his sta

te post-tria l re m e die s, he file d a pe tition for a writ of ha be a s c orpus. H e now a

ppe a ls the de nia l of tha

t pe tition. Shoc km a n’ s prim a ry a

rgum e nt is tha t e ffe c tive c ounse l would h a ve c onvinc e d him to ple a d guilty . Unsurprisingly , c ounse l did re c om m e nd tha t Shoc km a n ta

ke the ge ne rous ple a o ffe r. B u t , Shoc km a n c la i m s, ha d c ounse l first inve stigat ed t h e 2 002

c onvic tion, c ounse l would ha ve disc ove re d the da m ning na pkin pa tte rn, whic h would ha ve swa y e d Shoc km a n to follow c o unse l’ s a dvic e a nd ple a d guilty

. Inste a d, Shoc km a n c hose to go to tria l una

w a re tha t h e wo u l d be c onfronte d with t he unique

wa y he him se lf p ack a ge d m e tha m phe ta m ine

. This c hoic e , he a rgue s, re sulte d in a ha rshe r se n te nc e a f

ter t r i a l tha

n Shoc km a n would ha ve re c e ive d ha d c ounse l

unc ove re d the pa tte rn e a rl i er and the re b y c onvinc e d Shoc km a n to a c c e pt the ple a ba rga i n. S ho ckm a n ’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c o unse l c l a im fa ils. Our re view o f

c ounse l’ s pe rform a nc e is doubly de fe re ntia l. First, t he C a lifornia c ourts m

ust de fe r to

3c ounse l’ s re a sona ble j udgm e nts. Ve

ga v . Ry a n , 757 F.3d 960, 966 (9th C ir. 2014) (pe r
cu r i a m ). Se c ond, w e m

ust de fe r to the C a lifornia c ourts’ a sse ssm e nts of c ounse l ’s judgm e nts unle ss those a sse ssm e nts a re “ c ontra ry to , o r involve d a n unre a sona ble

a pplic a ti o n o f, c le a

rly e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w , a s de te rm ine d by the Supre m e C ourt of the Unite d Sta te s.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1); Ve ga , 757 F.3d a

t 966. He re, Shoc k

m a n’ s c ounse l wa s not de fic ie nt. Of c ourse , the right to e ffe c tive

a ssista nc e of c ounse l “ e xte nds to the ple a -ba rga ining p roc e ss,” Lafl er v . C oope r , 566 U.S. 156, 162 (2012), a n d i t is c l e a r t ha t, in som e c irc u m sta

nc e s, c ounse l m a y be

re quire d t o re vie w a c a se file from a p rior prose c ution re ga rdle s s of wha t the c lie nt doe s o r doe s not sa

y a bout it, Rompilla v . Be a rd , 5 45 U. S

. 3 7 4 , 381–90 (2005);

c f. Ve ga , 757 F.3d a t 9 6 8–69 (re quiring c ounse l to re vie w prior a ttorne y s’ c a se file for

sa m e m a tte r). B ut the C onstitution doe s not re quire de fen se c ounse l to o bta in a n d

re vie w the de ta ils of a c lie n t ’ s se ve n-y e a r-old drug c onvic tion be fore ple a b a rga ining whe n c ounse l is a lre a dy going to a dvise the c lie nt to accep t a ge ne rous p le a offe r in

a c a se with little c ha

nc e of a c quitta l a nd in w h i ch co unse l pla ns to m ove to e xc lude

ev i d en ce of t

he e a rlie r c onvic tion— a m otion t ha t wa s g ra

nte d be fore tria l. W hile Shoc km a n’ s tria l c ounse l him se lf a gre e d tha t h e wa s i ne ff ect i ve , on t

his re c ord we disa gre e . Se e Edw a rds v . Lamarque , 475 F.3d 1121, 1126 & n.2 (9th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e n ba nc ) (noting this C ourt’ s ske ptic ism of a n a ttorne y ’ s me a c ulpa ).

4Additiona lly , e ve n if c o unse l ha d be e n de fic i e nt, Shoc km a n would still ha ve to

show tha t he wa s p re

j udic e d by tha t def

ic ie nc y . Tha t re quire s “ a re a sona ble proba b ility tha t , but for c ounse l’ s unprofe ssiona l e rrors, the re sult o f t h e p r oc e e ding would h a ve be e n diffe re nt.” Stric kl a n d v . W ashington , 4 66 U.S. 668, 6 9 4 (1984). In the c onte x t of a re

j e c te d ple a a gre e m e nt, tha t m e a ns tha t Shoc km a

n m ust de m onstra

te ,
a m ong othe r things, a re a sona ble proba bility tha t the prose c ution would ha ve offe re d

a be n e fic ia l ple a a gre e m e nt a fte r c ounse l’ s hy p o t h e tic a l inve stiga

tion into the 2002

c onvic tion. Se e Lafle r , 566 U .S. a t 164. B ut the na pkin de ta il wa s in polic e re ports in the prose c ution’s offsite file of the 2002 c on v i c tion, a n d it is unc e rta in tha t the spe c ific de ta il c ould ha ve be e n obta i ne d othe r tha n by a re q ue st to the prose c utor, a s the re sponde nts a rgue . Thus, e a rlie r disc ove ry by Shoc km a n’ s c ounse l m a y we ll ha ve le d to the prose c ution le a rning of the pa tte rn t oo. And Shoc km a n o ffe rs no e vide nc e tha t t he prose c ution, like ly a rm e d with wha t the tria l judge c a lle d “ hom e run m a te ria l” (on top of a

n a l re a dy c o m

pe lling c a s e ), would e ve n ha ve offe re d a

ple a ba rga in. M ore ove r, Shoc km a

n’ s p ropose d re m e dy , sim ply va c a ting his co n v i ct ion, is odd m e dic ine whe n the purporte d m a la dy i s the loss of a c ha nc e to pl ead g u i lty

.

“ C onc e p tua lly , a ny ha

be a s re m e dy

‘ should put the de fe nda

n t ba c k in t

he position he would ha ve be e n i n i f the Sixth Am e ndm e nt viola tion ne ve r occu r r ed ’... .” N une s v . Mue lle r , 350 F.3d 1 0 4 5 , 1 057 (9th C ir. 2003) (quoting Unite d S tate s v . Blay loc k ,

520 F.3d 1458, 1468 (9th C ir. 1994)). Shoc km a n ha s s e rve d h is prison se nte nc e a nd is

now on pa

role

. W e r e we to gra nt re lie f in the se c irc um sta n c e s , the m ost tha t Shoc km a n c ould e x pe c t , a s a p ra c tic a l m a tte r, would be a re duc tion of his pa role te rm . Se e id. a t 1056–57; c

f. D ashe r v . A t t’y Ge n., Fla. , 574 F.3d 1310, 1318 (11th C ir. 2009) (on ha

b e a s, m odify ing a se nte nc e w ithout disturbing the unde rly ing c onvic tion). W e a lso re

je c t Shoc km a

n’ s a rgum e nt tha t the Due Proc e ss C l a use wa s viola

te d be c a use his c o-de fe n da

nt e ffe c t ive ly a c te d a s a prose c u tor. This a rgum e nt is ba se d o n the fa c t tha t i t wa s the c o-de fe nda nt’ s c ounse l ra the r tha

n the pros ecu t o r who first

c ross-e xa m ine d Shoc km a n re ga rding his unique m a

n ne r of pa c k a g ing drugs. De spite Shoc km a n’ s a rgum e nt, howe v er , the re w a s no e vide n c e t ha t the c o-de fe nda

nt h a d

a gre e d w ith the prose c utor to unde rm ine Shoc km a n’ s def en s e. Se e Pe ople v . Shockm a n , 124 C a l. R

p tr. 3d 329, 341 (C a l. C t. App. 2011). R a the r, the sta te c ourt

re a s ona bly de e m e d the c o-de fe nda nt’ s c ross-e xa m ina tion “ no m o r e t h an a n e ntire l y le gitim a te e ffort to sa lva ge som e sy m pa thy [for the c o - de fe nda nt’ s jury nullific a tion
stra te gy ] by de m onstra

ting tha t Shoc km a n w a s, if a n y thing, the m ore e xpe rie n c e d a n d sophistic a te d of the two drug de a le rs.” Id. a t 340. AFFIRM E D.

6Shoc km an v . Pe re z , Case No. 16-55195 Raw linson, Cir c uit Judge , c onc ur r ing: I c onc ur in the re sult. 

# FIL ED
N OV 22 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS