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.

T he H onor abl e T hom a s S . Z i l l y , S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJudge ** f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on, 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 RI CH A RD M A N U EL BU RG O S, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. M . Y A RBO RO U G H ; BI LL LO CK Y ER, A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 16896 D. C . No . 2 : 0 4 - c v - 0 0 0 2 1 - F C DDA 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 F r a nk C . D a m r e l l , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry11, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : T HO MP S ON a n dMc KE OWN, C i r c u i tJu d g e s , a n dZ I L L Y, S e ni or ** D i stri ctJudg e. R i c ha r d M a nue l B ur gos appe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on f

or aw r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s , w h ic h a lle g e din e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

tr ia l a n dap p e lla te 

# FI LED MA R 04 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

c o u n s e l. B u r g o s , aC a lif o rn ias ta te p r is o n e r , f

o llo w e dh is tr ia l c o u n s e l’s a d v ic e in p l ead i n g n o co n t estt o sev eral cri m i n al ch arg es an dsen t en ci n g en h an cem en t s, wh i l e p l e a d i n g n o tg u i l tyt o a“ s tr i k e ” ( u n d e rC a l i f o rn i a ’ s “ T h r e e S tr i k e s ” l a w) w hi c h w a s l a t e rdi s m i s s e d. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2253, a nd w e a f f i rm. B ur gos f i l e d hi s f e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i on a f t e rA pr i l 24, 1996; thus , the 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 ltyA c t ( “A E D P A ” ) g o v e rn s th is c a s e . Juan H. v. A l len , 4 0 8 F . 3 d1 2 6 2 , 1 2 7 0 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). U n d er A E D P A , w e d en y a h ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n u n le s s th e s ta te c o u rt’s a d ju d ic a tio n o f

th e c la im s r e s u lte din ad e c is io n c o n tr a ryto , o rin v o lv in g 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 es t 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 . ” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( lis tin g o th e rg r o u n d s f o rg r a n tin g ah ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n ) . W e r evi ew de no vo a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni alof a s t at e pri soner’ s pet i t i on for habeas r e lie f . J u a n H. , 408 F . 3d a t1269 n. 7. B u r g o s p r e s e n ts tw o c e rtif ie dis s u e s . I. W h et h er B u rgos’ p l ea of n o con te stw as i n vo l u n tary T he “ c l e a r l ye s t abl i s he d F e de r a l l a w ” a ti s s ue i n thi s c a s e i s the t e s tf or i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l s e tf

orth i n Str i c kland v . W

as hi ngton , 4 6 6 U . S. 6 6 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . F o ra n i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l c l a i m , ap e t i t i o n e rm u s ts h o w:3

( 1 ) d e f ic ie n t p e r f

o rm a n c e b yc o u n s e l th a t ( 2 ) p r e ju d ic e dp e titio n e rb ya d v e r s e ly a f f e c tin g th e o u tc o m e o f

th e p r o c e e d in g . Str i c kland , 46 6 U . S . at68 7-93 . In p art i cu l ar, a p et i t i o n er ch al l en g i n g th e v o l u n t ari n ess o f a n o co n t estp l ea “ m u st s how tha t( 1) hi s ‘ c ouns e l ’ s r e pr e s e nt a t i on f e l l be l ow a n obj e c t i ve s t a nda r d of reaso n ab l en ess, ’ an d(2 ) ‘ th ere i s a reaso n ab l e p ro b ab i l i ty th at , b u tfo r [h i s] c ouns e l ’ s e rr or s , he w oul d notha ve pl e a de d gui l tya nd w oul d ha ve i ns i s t e d on go i ng t o tri al . ’ ” W

om ac k v . D e l P apa , 497 F . 3d 998, 1002 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( q u o tin g , w ith a d d itio n , Hi l l v. L o ckh a rt , 4 7 4 U .S . 5 2 , 5 7 - 5 9 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ) ; se e Mi l lerv. Mc Car thy , 60 7 F . 2d 85 4, 85 6 (9th C i r. 19 79 ) ( expl ai ni ng thatfe dera l const i tut i on al pri nci pl es go verni ng gu i l ty pl ea s i n C al i forni a app l y e qu al l y t o n o con t es tpl ea s) . B u r g o s c o n te n d s th a t h is tr ia l c o u n s e l f a ile dto c o n du c t ar e a s o n ab le in v e s tig a tio n in to p o te n tia l d e f e n s e s a n d , th u s , f

a ile dto u n c o v e ra lle g e d ly e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e . E v e n a s s u m in g th e p e r f o rm a n c e o f

c o u n s e l w a s d e f

ic ie n t, B urgo s f ai l s t o sho w the exi st ence of excul pat ory e vi dence. B urgo s, there fore , has nots how n pr e

j udi c e , a s he ha s notde m ons tr a t e d ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i tytha tthe re sul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . F urtherm ore, w hen asked at the pl e ac ol l oquy , “ A r e y ou e nt e r i ng thi s pl e af r e e l ya nd vol unt a r i l y ? ” , B ur gos re spon ded, “ Y es . ” See B lac kle dge v . A l l is on , 4 3 1 U . S. 6 3 , 7 4 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ( “ So l e mn decl ar at i on s i n o pen cou rtcarry astrong pres um pt i on of veri ty. ”) .4

II. W he t he r Bur g o s ’ a ppe l l a t e c o uns e lr e nde r e d i ne f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a nc e by f ai l i n g t o r ai s e c l ai m s on ap p e al W h e r e ac la im o f

in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l is b a s e do n a n ap p e lla te a tto rn e y ’s f

a ilu r e to r a is e c la im s o n ap p e a l, th e c la im a n t m u s t s h o w ( 1 ) th a t h is coun se l w as obj ec t i vel y unrea sonabl e i n fai l i ng t o rai se tho se cl ai m s, and (2) that th e c la im s h a dar e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ilityo f s u c c e s s o n ap p e a l. Sm i th v . R obbi ns , 5 2 8 U .S . 2 5 9 , 2 8 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . B ur gos a r gue s tha thi s S t a t e appe l l a t e c ouns e l e rr e d byf a i l i ng t o c ha l l e nge the vo l un t ar i ness of B urgo s’ pl eaon the grou nd thatB urgo s had l i m i t ed o p p o rtu n itie s to c o n f

e rw ith h is tr ia l c o u n s e l a n dto p a rtic ip a te in h is d e f e n s e . B urgo s, ho w ever , has f

ai l ed t o sho w any pre

j ud i ci alerror by hi s tri alcoun se l a r i s i ng f r om the s e a l l e ge d c i r c um s t a nc e s . E ve n a s s um i ng de f i c i e ntpe r f

orm a nc e by B ur gos ’ appe l l a t e c ouns e l i n f a i l i ng t o r a i s e the c l a i m s on appe a l , B ur gos doe s not sh o w th atan y u n assert edcl ai m h ada reaso n ab l e p ro b ab i l i ty o f su ccess. T h u s, B u r g o s h a s f

a ile dto s h o w p r e

ju d ic e . Se e Fe a th e rs to n e v . Es te lle , 948 F . 2d 1497, 15 06 -07 (9th C i r. 19 91 ). B ur gos a l s o a r gue s , w i thouts upport , tha thi s appe l l a t e c ouns e l e rr e d by f a ilin g to c h a lle n g e B u r g o s ’ c o n v ic tio n a n ds e n te n c e o n v a r io u s o th e rg r o u n d s . T he s e c l a i m s f

a i l be c aus e B ur gos ha s nots how n tha tthe una s s e rt e d c l a i m s ha d a ny p ro b ab i l i ty o f su ccess.5 CONCL US I ON W e de nyB ur gos ’ pe t i t i on a s t o the tw o c e rt i f i e d i s s ue s . B ur gos ’ c l a i m s of in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

tr ia l c o u n s e l a n dap p e lla te c o u n s e l a r e f o r e c lo s e db yh is fa i l ure t o est abl i sh prej ud i ce . W e a l so concl ud e thatthe un ce rt i fi ed cl ai m s r ai se d b yB u r g o s in h is o p e n in g b r ie f d o n o t w a rr a n t c o n s id e r a tio n , a n dw e d e n yh is m o tio n to e x p a n dth e c e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ilityto in c lu d e th e m . See 9 th Ci r . R. 22 -1(e ). AF F I RME D.