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 a nd 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. T he panel un ani m ou sl y f i nd s thi s c as e s ui t abl e f

or deci si on w i tho utoral ** ar gu m ent . F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NO T F OR P UB L I C AT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT A B E L A R D O C H A P A R R O , ) N o. 10- 15295 ) P e t i t i o n e r–Ap p e l l a n t , ) D. C . No . 2 : 0 3 - c v - 0 0 7 0 1 - DG C ) v . ) ME MORA ND UM * ) I V A N B A R T O S ; ) T E R R Y G OD DA R D, ) ) R esp o n d en t s –A p p el l ees. ) )

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona D a vi d G . C a m pbe l l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d J ul y 18, 2012 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , P A E Z , an d N G U Y E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A bel ar do C haparro appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on for a w r i to f h ab e a s c o rp u s . Se e 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 . W e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED

JU L 27 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSS e e P a di l l av. K e ntuc ky , __ U . S . __, __, 130 S . C t . 1473, 1482, 176 L . E d. 1 2d 284 ( 2010) ; S tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 687, 104 S . C t . 2052, 20 64 , 80 L . E d. 2d 67 4 (19 84 ). S ee S t at e v. G rann i s, 90 0 P . 2d 1, 9– 10 (A ri z. 19 95 ), ov errul ed on other 2 grou nd s by S t at e v. K i ng , 23 5 P . 3d 24 0, 24 2– 43 (A ri z. 20 10 ). S e e P a di l l a , __ U . S . a t__, 130 S . C t . a t1482; S tr i c kl a nd, 466 U . S . a t694, 3 104 S . C t . a t2068. Se e M i d d l e t o n v . M c Ne i l , 5 4 1 U. S. 4 3 3 , 4 3 8 , 1 2 4 S. Ct . 1 8 3 0 , 1 8 3 3 , 1 5 8 L. 4 E d . 2 d7 0 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . 2 ( 1 ) C h ap a rr o a s s e rts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d in d e n y in g r e lie f o n h is cl ai m re gardi ng an am bi gu ou s s el f- defe nse i nstruct i on . T he st at e c ou rtdet erm i ned tha te ve n i f

c ouns e l unr e a s onabl y of f e r e d a n a m bi guous s e l f

- de f e ns e i ns truc t i on, 1 2 there w as no prej ud i ce ; i tpo i nt ed ou tthata c l osel y f ol l ow i ng i nstruct i on cl ar i fi ed 3 thatam bi gu i ty. M oreover, bo th the st at e c ou rtand the di stri ctcourtno t ed that 4 su b st an t i al (i n d eed o v erw h el m i n g ) ev i d en ce w ei g h ed ag ai n stth e sel f-d efen se c la im . W e a r e u n ab le to s a y th a t th e s ta te c o u rt’s d e te rm in a tio n w a s u n r e a s o n ab le . S e e H a rr i ngt on v. R i c ht e r , __ U . S . __, __, 131 S . C t . 770, 785–86, 178 L . E d. 2d 62 4 (20 11 ). T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr. ( 2) C hapa rr o the n a s s e rt s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n de ny i ng r e l i e f on h is c la im r e g a r d in g e x c lu d e d e v id e n c e . T h e s ta te c o u rt d e te rm in e d th a t e v e n if coun se l ’ s per form ance w as defi ci enti n fai l i ng t o o bt ai n adm i ss i on of excl ud edP r e s u m ab ly th a t te s tim o n y w o u ld h a v e g o n e to C h ap a rr o ’s s ta te o f m in d . 5 3 t e s t i m ony of

aw i tne s s , the r e w a s no pr e j udi c e w i thi n the m e a ni ng of S tr i c kl a nd, 5 466 U . S . a t694, 104 S . C t . a t2068; i tpoi nt e d t o the w i tne s s ’ s i nc ons i s t e nc i e s , the pa rt i a l l y c um ul a t i ve na tur e of the t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng the vi c t i m ’ s thr e a t s , a nd the ov erw hel m i ng evi dence agai nstthe se l f- defe nse c l ai m . O n thi s r ec ord, w e are un abl e t o saythatthe st at e c ou rt ’ s det erm i nat i on w as un re as on abl e. T he di stri ct courtdi d n oterr. ( 3 ) C h ap a rr o n e x t a s s e rts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e rr e d w h e n it r e f u s e d to c o n s id e rc e rta in o f

h is c la im s th a t w e r e p r o c e d u r a lly d e f au lte d , d u e to h is f

a ilu r e to ra i se them i n the st at e c ou rt s. S ee B ea ty v. S t ew art , 30 3 F . 3d 97 5, 98 7 (9th C i r. 2002) . W e a gr e e tha thi s pr oc e dur a l de f aul t s w oul d be e xc us e d i f i tc oul d be s how n tha t“ i ti s m or e l i ke l y tha n nottha tno r e a s onabl e j ur orw oul d ha ve c onvi c t e d hi m i n the l i ghtof the ne w e vi de nc e ” he ha s pr e s e nt e d. S c hl up v. D e l o, 513 U . S . 298, 327, 115 S . C t . 851, 867, 130 L . E d. 2d 808 ( 1995) ; s e e a l s o L e e v. L a m pe rt , 653 F . 3d 929, 938 ( 9th C i r . 2011) ( e n ba nc ) . H ow e ve r , t a ke n w i th the o th er ev i d en ce i n th e reco rd , th e ex p ert ’ s affi d av i to n th e i ssu e o f sel f-d efen se s u b mi tt e d b y Ch ap a rr o d o e s n o tme e tth a te x a c t i n g s t a n d a r d . Se e Sc h l u p , 5 1 3 U . S. a t327, 115 S . C t . a t867; L e e , 653 F . 3d a t938; s e e a l s o S m i th v. B a l dw i n, 510T o the ext entthatC haparro as se rt s afr ee -s t andi ng subst ant i ve ac tual 6 i nnoc e nc e c l a i m , w e de c l i ne t o c ons i de ri t . S e e 28 U . S . C . § 2253( c ) ; S l a c k v. M c D a ni e l , 529 U . S . 473, 483–84, 120 S . C t . 1595, 1603, 146 L . E d. 2d 542 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ; R h o a d e s v . H e n ry , 5 9 8 F .3 d 5 1 1 , 5 1 5 n .6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) . A s s u m in g th a t a cl ai m of thatsortcan b e m ade i n thi s s ortof ca se , i tcoul d n otprevai l here . S ee H e rr e r av. C ol l i ns , 506 U . S . 390, 417, 113 S . C t . 853, 869, 122 L . E d. 2d 203 (199 3); C oo per v. B row n, 51 0 F . 3d 87 0, 88 5 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). 4 F . 3d 1127, 1140 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( e n ba nc ) . T hus , w e r e j e c ttha ta s s e rt i on. 6 AF F I R ME D.