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 by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 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 TH RY N PO TTER, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. T I N A H O RN B E C K , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 15338 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 1 1 7 4 - M SB 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 M a r s haS . B E R Z O N , C i r c ui tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 14, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , N O O N A N , an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner K athryn P ott er(“ P ott er ”) appeal s the deni al of her pet i t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus al l egi ng thather c on vi ct i on for s ec on d-degree mu r d e rv i o l a t e d d u e p r o c e s s . W e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED MA R 01 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

P ott er ’ s c on vi ct i on ar ose f rom the death o f tw el ve-y ear- ol d C hri st op her C ej as (“ C hri st op her” ). T he evi dence attri al show ed thatA nd re w C ej as (“ C ej as ”) , P ott er ’ s put at i ve hu sband and C hri st op her’ s f ather, beatthe chi l d t o d ea th. P ott er w as i n the apartm entshe s hare d w i th C ej as du ri ng the beat i ng and i n the ho urs a f te rw a r d b u t d id n o th in g to p r o te c t C h r is to p h e ro rs e e km e d ic a l c a r e f o rh im . T he di stri ctcourthad j uri sdi ct i on ov erP ott er ’ s pet i t i on for aw ri tof habeas c orpus unde r28 U . S . C . § 2254. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 2253. W e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a pri soner’ s pet i t i on for a w r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s . W

o o d s v . S in c la ir , 655 F . 3d 886, 896 ( 9th C i r . 2011) ( c i t i ng B row n v. O rnoski , 503 F . 3d 1006, 1010 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ) . P ott e rm us ts how tha tthe s t a t e c ourt ’ s a dj udi c a t i on of he rc l a i m s “ r e s ul t e d i n ade c i s i on tha tw a s c ontr a ry t o, or i nv ol ved an u nrea sonabl e app l i ca t i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as d e te rm in e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) .

“ A st at e c ou rt ’ s det erm i nat i on thata c l ai m l ac ks m er i tprec l ud es fe dera l habeas r e lie f s o lo n g a s ‘f

a irm in d e d ju r is ts c o u ld d is a g r e e ’ o n th e c o rr e c tn e s s o f th e s ta te court ’ s dec i si on . ” H

arri ng ton v. R i chter , 131 S . C t . 770, 786 ( 2011) ( quot i ng Y ar bor ough v . A lv ar ado , 5 4 1 U .S 6 5 2 , 6 6 4 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ) . P ott e ra r gue s tha tunde rC a l i f orni al a w , ape r s on w ho ha s c a r e a nd c us t ody of am i nora nd f

a i l s t o s e e k m e di c a l a i d f orthe c hi l d c a nnotbe c onvi c t e d of3

s e c o n d - d e g r e e im p lie d m a lic e m u r d e ro n th e b a s is o f th a t o m is s io n . S h e a s s e r ts th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt e rr e d in in s tru c tin g th e ju ry to th e c o n tr a ry a n d v io la te d c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f

e d e r a l la w a s d e te rm in e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s in Sands tr om v . Montana , 442 U . S . 510 ( 1979) , a nd B o u ie v . C ity o f C o lu m b ia , 378 U . S . 347 ( 1964) . W e c onc l ude tha tP ott e r ’ s c ha l l e nge s t o he rc onvi c t i on f or se cond -degree i m pl i ed m al i ce m urder a re procedural l y def aul t ed because she f

ai l ed to r a is e th e m b e f

o r e th e C a lif

o rn iaC o u r t o f

A p p e a l. Se e C ole m an v . T hom ps on , 5 0 1 U .S . 7 2 2 , 7 2 9

– 3 0 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; P eopl e v . P ot ter , N os . C 052634, C 053349, 2007 W L 4 3 0 5 5 4 7 , a t * 7 ( C a l. C t. A p p . D e c . 1 0 , 2 0 0 7 ) . If w e w er e t o add re ss the m er i t s of P ott er ’ s c l ai m s, w e w ou l d con cl ud e that the j ury i ns truc t i ons gi ve n i n P ott e r ’ s c a s e di d notvi ol a t e due pr oc e s s . I n 1977, the C a l i f orni aC ourtof

A ppe a l c onc l ude d tha taf a the r ’ s f a i l ur e t o f

e e d hi s s on s upport e d ac onvi c t i on f ors e c ond- de gr e e i m pl i e d m a l i c e m ur de rw he n the i nf a nt s ta rv e d to d e a th . P eopl e v . B urden , 140 C a l . R ptr . 282, 288–89 ( C a l . C t . A pp. 1 9 7 7 ) . P o tte r ’s a s s e rtio n th a t P e ople v . W his e nhunt , 18 6 P . 3d 49 6 (C al . 20 08 ), re ac hed a contraryre sul ti s i ncorrec t . T he j ury i nstruct i on s gi ven atP ott er ’ s tri al di d n otre l i eve the S t at e of the bu rden of proo f on any el em entof se cond -degree m urder i n v i ol at i on of Sands tr om . N o rd id th e y c o n s titu te a n u n f o r e s e e ab le j ud i ci al enl ar gem entof a c ri m i nal st atut e i n v i ol at i on of B o u ie .4

P o tte rc o n te n d s th a t th e tr ia l c o u r t v io la te d d u e p r o c e s s w h e n it f a ile d to i nstructthe j ury on the neces si ty def ense s u a s

p o n te . A c r im in a l d e f

e n d a n t is “e n title d to a n in s tru c tio n a s to a n y r e c o g n iz e d d e f e n s e f o rw h ic h th e r e e x is ts evi dence s uffi ci entfor are as on abl e j ury t o fi nd i n h i s f avor. ” M

at thew s v . U

ni ted Stat es , 485 U . S . 58, 63 ( 1988) . I n ac ol l a t e r a l a tt a c k on as t a t e c onvi c t i on, the que s t i on i s w he the rthe i ns truc t i ona l e rr or“ s o i nf e c t e d the e nt i r e tr i a l tha tthe re sul t i ng conv i ct i on vi ol at es du e proces s. ” H e nde rs on v . Ki bbe , 431 U . S . 145, 154 ( 1977) ( quot i ng C up

p v. N au gh ten , 41 4 U . S . 14 1, 14 7 (19 73 )) . E ven i f there w as s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt an e c e s s ity d e f e n s e , P o tte rc a n n o t d e m o n s tr a te prej ud i ce . T he C al i forni a C ou rtof A pp ea l w as corr ec ti n con cl ud i ng thata j ury tha tr e j e c t e d the dur e s s de f

e ns e c oul d notha ve f

ound tha ta l l e l e m e nt s of the n e c e s s ity d e f

e n s e w e r e s a tis f

ie d . P ott e ra l s o c ha l l e nge s the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e s uppor t i ng he rs e c ondde gr e e m ur de rc onvi c t i on. T he j ury w a s i ns truc t e d on tw o the or i e s of s e c ondd eg ree m u rd er: (1 ) i m p l i ed m al i ce m u rd er an d (2 ) ai d i n g an d ab ett i n g ch i l d ab u se w ith d ea th as a n atu ra l an d p ro b ab le co n se q u en ce . W e m u st af firm P o tt er ’s c o n v ic tio n if

e ith e ro f th e s e tw o le g a l th e o r ie s is s u p p o r te d b y th e e v id e n c e . See Soc horv . Flor i da , 504 U . S . 527, 538 ( 1992) ( c i t i ng G ri f f i n v. U ni ted Stat es , 502 U . S . 46 ( 1991) ) . W e c onc l ude tha tP ott e r ’ s c ha l l e nge t o the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the5

e v id e n c e s u p p o rtin g th e im p lie d m a lic e m u r d e rth e o ry is p r o c e d u r a lly d e f au lte d . Se e C ole m an , 501 U . S . a t729–30; P ot ter , 2 0 0 7 W L 4 3 0 5 5 4 7 , a t * 7 . I f w e w e r e to r e a c h th e m e r its o f

P o tte r ’s s u f

f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e c h a lle n g e , w e w o u ld concl ud e, for the re as on s s t at ed by the di stri ctcourt , thather c on vi ct i on for i m pl i ed m a lic e m u r d e rw a s s u p p o rte d b y th e e v id e n c e . A F F I R M E D .