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 F R E E OD E L L S MI T H, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. D E R R A L G . A D A M S , W a r de n; AT T ORNE Y G E NE R AL F ORT 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. 10- 17482 DC No . 2 : 0 7 c v - 1 4 6 2 GEB 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 G a r l a nd E . B urr e l l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry 14, 2013 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: N O O N A N , T A S H IM A , an d G R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F re e O del l S m i th app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on for habeas c o rp u s r e l i e f

p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED JAN 24 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

§§ 1291 a nd 2253. W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of ahabe a s pe t i t i on de n o v o . D e W

e a v e rv . R u n n e ls , 5 5 6 F .3 d 9 9 5 , 9 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . W e a f f irm . 1. T h e C alifo rn ia C o u rt o f A p p ea l rea so n ab ly co n clu d ed th at S m ith ’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts w e r e n o t v io la te d b y th e tr ia l c o u rt’s d e c is io n n o t to ap p o in t n e w c o u n s e l a t th e p r e - tr ia l M arsden h e a r in g . See P eopl e v . M arsden , 465 P . 2d 44 (C al . 19 70 ). T he S i xth A m endm entdo es no tgu ar ant ee a c ri m i nal d e f e n d a n t a“m e a n in g f

u l r e la tio n s h ip ” w ith h is a tto rn e y . Mor r is v . Slappy , 461 U .S . 1 , 1 3 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . I n d e e d , “n o S u p r e m e C o u rt c a s e h a s h e ld th a t ‘th e S ix th A m endm enti s vi ol at ed w hen a defendanti s r epre se nt ed by a l aw ye r f re e of a ctual c onf l i c t s of i nt e r e s t , butw i th w hom the de f e nda ntr e f

us e s t o c oope r a t e be c aus e of di sl i ke or di strust . ’ ” L arson v. P alm at ee r , 515 F . 3d 1057, 1067 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng P lu m le e v . M

a s to , 5 1 2 F .3 d 1 2 0 4 , 1 2 1 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( e n b a n c ) ) . H e r e , the r e i s no a l l e ga t i on tha ttr i a l c ouns e l ha d a n a c tua l c onf l i c tof in te r e s t. R a th e r , S m ith ’s p o o rr e la tio n s h ip w ith tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s a ttr ib u tab le to thei r di ff er i ng op i ni on s a s t o tri al stra t egy and S m i th’ s s ubj ec t i ve di strust , nei ther o f w h ic h is as u itab le g r o u n d f o rh ab e a s r e lie f

. See P lum lee , 5 1 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 0 - 1 1 . T h e tr ia l c o u rt a ls o c o n d u c te d ath o r o u g h in q u iry in to S m ith ’s c la im o f ac o n f lic t, f o r e c lo s in g th e p o s s ib ility o f r e lie f o n th is g r o u n d . Se e i d. a t 1 2 1 1 .- 3-

2. T h e s ta te C o u rt o f A p p e a l r e a s o n ab ly c o n c lu d e d th a t S m ith ’s S ix th A m e ndm e ntr i ght s w e r e notvi ol a t e d by the tr i a l c ourt ’ s de c i s i on nott o appoi nt ne w c ouns e l , pos t - tr i a l , t o pur s ue am ot i on f orane w tr i a l . W i th r e s pe c tt o the s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e in q u iry c o n d u c te d , th e tr ia l c o u rt a f f o r d e d S m ith th e o p p o rtu n ity t o setforth the re as on s w hy he bel i eved new coun se l (and a new tri al ) w as w a rr a nt e d. T o the e xt e nttha tS m i th c l a i m e d ac onf l i c tw i th c ouns e l , S m i th di d not of f e ra ny e vi de nc e of

the a l l e ge d c onf

l i c ttha tha d notbe e n f

ul l y e xpl or e d dur i ng th e p r e - tr ia l M

arsden h e a r in g . T he a l l e ga t i ons unde r l y i ng S m i th’ s r e que s tf orne w c ouns e l a l s o di d not , on the m er i t s, pres enta vi abl e c l ai m of i neff ec t i ve as si st ance . T he ph ys i ca l d e s c r ip tio n th a t th e u n c a lle d w itn e s s a lle g e d ly w o u ld h a v e p r o v id e d a c tu a lly m at ched S m i th’ s app earance am on th fol l ow i ng the shoo t i ng ; there fore , that w i tness ’ t es t i m on y w ou l d o nl y have harmed S m i th’ s c as e. A s f or the al l eged fa il u re to re v ea l cer tain in fo rm atio n co n ce rn in g S co ttA p p leb y, o n e o f th e S tate’s w i tne s s e s , tr i a l c ouns e l ha d a l r e a dy i m pe a c he d A ppl e by by i ntr oduc i ng s e ve r a l of h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n s a t tr ia l. T he fa i l ure t o t ake a dd i t i on al i m peac hm entm ea sure s di d n otpres enta c ol orabl e c l ai m of defi ci entperf orm ance , or prej ud i ce , un der S tr ic kla n d

v . W a s h in g to n , 46 6 U . S . 66 8 (19 84 ).- 4-

3. T h e s ta te C o u rt o f A p p e a l r e a s o n ab ly c o n c lu d e d th a t S m ith ’s r ig h ts w e r e notvi ol a t e d by the tr i a l c ourt ’ s r e f us a l t o gr a ntac ont i nua nc e a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. T r i a l c ourt s a r e a f f or de d br oa d di s c r e t i on on m a tt e r s of c o n tin u a n c e s . Mo r r is , 46 1 U . S . at11 . In as se ss i ng w hether the deni al of a c ont i nua nc e w a s “ s o a rbi tr a ry a s t o vi ol a t e due pr oc e s s , ” w e m us tl ook t o the ci rc um st ance s of the gi ven cas e, “ part i cul ar l y . . . the re as on s pre se nt ed t o the tri al j ud ge atthe t i m e the re qu es t[w as ] deni ed. ” U n g a rv . Sa r a

fite , 376 U . S . 575, 589 ( 1964) . S m i th r e que s t e d ac ont i nua nc e – on the da y of hi s s c he dul e d s e nt e nc i ng – so thathe coul d fi l e a pro se m ot i on f orane w tr i a l . B utthe tr i a l c ourtha d a l r e a dy he a r d, a nd appr opr i a t e l y r e j e c t e d, the gr ounds f

ortha tm ot i on. 4. T h er e w as n o co n stitu ti o n al v io lati o n re su lt in g fr o m th e trial co u rt’s r e s pons e t o the j ury ’ s que s t i on on the di f f e r e nc e be tw e e n m a l i c e a f or e thoughta nd pr e m e di t a t i on. A tr i a l c ourte nj oy s “ w i de di s c r e t i on” i n r e s pondi ng t o aque s t i on f r o m th e ju ry . A r i

z ona v . J ohns on , 35 1 F . 3d 98 8, 99 4 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). S m i th d oes nots ugge s ttha tthe tr i a l c ourt ’ s br i e f e xpl a na t i ons of

m a l i c e a f

or e thoughta nd prem edi t at i on w er e i ncorrec tst at em ent s of the l aw , no r does S m i th sug gestthat there w er e any defi ci enci es i n the un derl yi ng i nstruct i on s t o w hi ch the court p o i n t e d th e j u ry . I n d e e d , b e c au s e th e j u ry d i d n o ta s ka n y f o l l o wup q u e s t i o n s , we m u s t p r e s u m e th a t th e ju ry u n d e r s to o d th e c o u rt’s r e s p o n s e a n d ap p r o p r ia te ly- 5-

ap p lie d th e in s tru c tio n s r e f e r e n c e d in th a t r e s p o n s e . Se e W addi ngton v . Sar aus ad , 555 U . S . 179, 195- 96 ( 2009) ( c i t i ng W e e k s v . A nge lone , 528 U . S . 225, 234 (200 0)). 5. T he adm i ss i on of t es t i m on y f rom on e of the S t at e’ s w i tness es concerni ng a m enac i ng T -s hi rtl ef ton hi s c arpri or t o tri al di d n ot“ re nd er [] the tri al so fund am ent al l y unfai r a s t o v i ol at e due process . ” R a n do lp h v . C a lifo rn ia , 380 F . 3d 1133, 1147 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . T he t e s t i m ony i m p l i cat ed S m i th o n l y i n d i rect l y, i f atal l ; fu rth er, b efo re ad m i tt i n g th e t est i m o n y, the tr i a l c ourtga ve al i m i t i ng i ns truc t i on tha tthe j ury c oul d c ons i de rthe t e s t i m ony o n ly f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

e v a lu a tin g th e w itn e s s ’ c r e d ib ility . J u r ie s a r e p r e s u m e d to f o llo w s u c h in s tru c tio n s . See Zaf i ro v. U ni ted Stat es , 50 6 U . S . 53 4, 54 0 (19 93 ). 6. T he pr os e c ut or ’ s c om m e nt s on S m i th’ s f a i l ur e t o c a l l hi s gi r l f

r i e nd and A ntho ny W oo ds as w i tness es di d n otvi ol at e the di ct at e of G ri f f i n v. C a lifo rn ia , 380 U . S . 609 ( 1965) . “ [ A ] pr os e c ut orm a y pr ope r l y c om m e ntupon a de f e nda nt ’ s f

a i l ur e t o pr e s e ntw i tne s s e s s o l ong a s i ti s notphr a s e d t o c a l l a tt e nt i on t o [the] defe nd ant ’ s ow n fai l ure t o t es t i fy . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . C a s tillo , 866 F . 2d 1 0 7 1 , 1 0 8 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ; se e al so U ni ted S ta tes v. In zu n za , 6 3 8 F .3 d 1 0 0 6 , 1 0 2 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 132 S . C t . 997 ( 2012) . H e r e , the pr os e c ut or ’ s c om m e nt s di d notrun a f oul of thi s t e s t . T he y i n no- 6-

w a y d r e w a tte n tio n to S m ith ’s n o t te s tif y in g , b u t o n ly s p o k e to th e f a ilu r e to pr e s e nttw o pa rt i c ul a rw i tne s s e s w ho c oul d ha ve e xone r a t e d S m i th. 7. S m i th i s note nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f on hi s c l a i m s of

i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of tri al coun se l . T he S ac ra m ent o C ou nty S up er i or C ou rtre as on abl y c on cl ud ed that tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s n o t in e f f e c tiv e in f

a ilin g to c a ll a n e x p e rt w itn e s s . S m ith m e r e ly s pe c ul a t e s a s t o the e xpe rtt e s t i m ony tha tc oul d ha ve be e n pr oduc e d, but

“ [s] p ecu l at i o n ab o u tw h atan ex p ertco u l d h av e sai d i s n o ten o u g h t o est ab l i sh prej ud i ce . ” G r is b

y v . B lo d g e tt , 130 F . 3d 365, 373 ( 9th C i r . 1997) . T he S upe r i or C o u rt a ls o r e a s o n ab ly c o n c lu d e d th a t S m ith w a s n o t p r e ju d ic e d b y th e f

a ilu r e to ca ll A n th o n y W o o d s a s a w itn es s. In se v er al lett er s th at W o o d s s en t t o S m ith ’s s t a t e appe l l a t e c ouns e l , W oods a s s e rt e d tha tS c ottA ppl e by ha d l i e d aboutw ho pi c ke d up the s he l l c a s i ngs f ol l ow i ng the s hoot i ng. Y e tthi s t e s t i m ony ha d a l r e a dy been un derm i ned attri al . M oreover, W oo ds’ l ett er s neverdi sput ed the ce ntra l fa ct of the c a s e – tha tS m i th w a s the s hoot e r– m a ki ng i tunl i ke l y tha thi s t e s t i m ony w o u l d h av e n eg at ed th e stro n g ev i d en ce t o th i s effect pro d u ced attri al . F i n al l y, S m i th’ s c l a i m tha ttr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o gi ve a n ope ni ng st at em entfa i l s. T hi s i s the ki nd of deci si on thati s “ a m er e m att erof tri al t ac t i cs . ” U ni ted Stat es v. R odri

gu ez -R am i rez , 77 7 F . 2d 45 4, 45 8 (9th C i r. 19 85 ).- 7-

8. T he consecut i ve se nt ence thatS m i th rec ei ved p ursuantt o C al . P enal C o d e § 1 2 0 2 2 .5 3 ( d ) d id n o t v io la te th e p r o h ib itio n a g a in s t d o u b le je o p a r d y . See P las c e nc i a v . A lam e i da , 46 7 F . 3d 11 90 , 12 04 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). 9. S m i th di d notr e c e i ve i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

appe l l a t e c ouns e l f

or fa i l ure t o rai se vari ou s of hi s c l ai m s on d i re ctappeal , because a l l of hi s c l ai m s are w ith o u t m e r it. Se e W

i ldm an v . J

ohns on , 26 1 F . 3d 83 2, 84 0 (9th C i r. 20 01 ). T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is AF F I RME D.