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. 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 C ON S T AN T I NO C AR R E R A, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. R O B E R T L . A Y E R S , J r . , W a r de n, W ar den o f the C al i forni a S t at e P ri son at S a n Q ue nt i n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 99007 D . C . N o . 1 : 9 0 - C V - 0 0 4 7 8 - A WI 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 A nthony W . I s hi i , C hi e f 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 une 20, 2012 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia Be f o r e : K O ZI N SK I , Ch i e f

J u d g e , PREG ERSO N , W . FLETCH ER, FI SH ER, B E R Z O N , T A L L M A N , C L I F T O N , I K U T A , N . R . S M I T H , M U R G U I A , a nd C H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C on st ant i no C arre raappeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on for a w r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s . C a rr e r a a lle g e s m u ltip le tr ia l e rr o r s th a t e n title h im to 

# FI LED NO V 06 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

habe a s r e l i e f

. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253, a nd w e a f f i r m on the i s s ue s a ddr e s s e d i n thi s m e m or a ndum di s pos i t i on. I n a n opi ni on f i l e d c onc urr e nt l y w i th thi s m e m or a ndum di s pos i t i on, w e a f f i rm the de ni a l of C arre ra ’ s i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance of coun se l cl ai m base d o n d ef ense coun se l ’ s f

ai l ure t o m ake a W

h eel er m ot i on. W e r evi ew de no vo a di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o d eny apet i t i on for habeas r e lie f a n d r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re rr o r . R ob i nson v. Sch ri ro , 59 5 F . 3d 10 86 , 10 99 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). T hi s c ou rtca nn otgranthabeas re l i ef unl e s s a tr i a l e rr or“ ha d s ubs t a nt i a l a nd i nj ur i ous e f f e c tori nf l ue nc e i n de t e rm i ni ng the j ury’ s ver di ct . ” B r e c ht v . A br aham s on , 50 7 U . S . 61 9, 62 3 (19 93 ) ( i nt ernal q u o t at i o n s o m i tt ed ). U n d er th i s st an d ard , h ab eas rel i ef can n o tb e g ran t ed u n l ess the r e i s “ a r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty ” tha tthe j ury w oul d ha ve r e a c he d a di f f e r e nt v e r d ic t ab s e n t th e c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r . Cla rk v . Br o wn , 45 0 F . 3d 89 8, 91 6 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) . I . I nc ons i s t e ntT e s t i m ony C arre raw as no tprej ud i ce d b y a ny i ncon si st enci es betw ee n M i gu el S an tan a’s tes ti m o n y a t R am iro R u iz’s trial an d S an tan a’s tes ti m o n y a t C ar re ra ’s subsequenttri al . Ini t i al l y, on l y tw o o f the al l eged i ncon si st enci es w er e i n fac t i nc ons i s t e nt : ( 1) w he the ri tw a s R ui z orC a rr e r a w ho a s ke d S a nt a na i f he ha d the3

“ gu t s t o k i l l ” on the ni gh tof the m urders and (2) w hether i tw as R ui z or C arre ra w h o w o re g rey T rax sn eak ers o n th e n i g h to f th e m u rd ers. T he t e s t i m onyr e l a t i ng t o w he the rS a nt a na l e a rne d aboutthe ki l l i ngs f r om C a rr e r a , R u iz , o rb o th o f th e m – th e th ir d a lle g e d in c o n s is te n c y– w a s n o t, in f a c t, i ncon si st ent . T hu s, no hear sa y e xcept i on appl i ed, and the tri al courtdi d n oterr w he n i ti ns truc t e d de f

e ns e c ouns e l nott o c r os s - e xa m i ne S a nt a na aboutthe t es t i m on y he gave atR ui z’ s tri al . F urther, because S ant ana’ s t es t i m on y w as base d on s t a t e m e nt s m a de by C a rr e r a , r a the rtha n R ui z , the r e w a s no vi ol a t i on of the C on fr on t at i on C l ause . T he f our th a l l e ge d i nc ons i s t e nc y–w he the ri tw a s C a rr e r a orR ui z w ho o b ta in e d a la r g e rk n if

e d u r in g th e a tta c k

– w a s n o t in c o n s is te n t. A t th e tr ia ls o f b o th R ui z a nd C a rr e r a , S a nt a na t e s t i f i e d tha tR ui z ’ s kni f

e br oke a nd R ui z w e nti nt o the k itc h e n to g e t ab ig g e rk n if e . T h e p r o s e c u to rin C a rr e r a ’s tr ia l a r g u e d d u r in g h is c l os i ng tha ti tw a s C a rr e r a w ho gotthe bi gge rkni f e . A l though thi s m a y be evi dence of prosec ut ori al m i sc on du ct , i tdo es no tre nd erS ant ana’ s e vi dence in c o n s is te n t. T he t es t i m on y r egar di ng the “ gu t s t o k i l l ” quest i on re l at ed on l y t o w hether C a rr e r a in te n d e d to k ill th e v ic tim s , n o t to w h e th e rh e h a d in te n t to c o m m it r o b b e ry . H o w e v e r , C a rr e r a c o u ld h a v e b e e n f o u n d g u ilty o f

f e lo n y m u r d e re v e n if4

he i nt e nde d onl y t o r ob the m ot e l . T hus , a ny i nc ons i s t e nc y w a s ha rm l e s s . T he i nc ons i s t e nc y r e ga r di ng w ho w or e the gr e y T r a x s ne a ke r s w a s ha rm l e s s i n l i ghtof the other overw hel m i ng evi dence thatC arre rapart i ci pat ed i n the ki l l i ng s. F urther, e xc e ptf orthe t e s t i m ony r e l a t i ng t o w he the rS a nt a na l e a rne d aboutthe ki l l i ngs fro m C arrera, R u i z, o r b o th o f th em , th e tri al co u rtp l aced n o l i m i t at i o n s o n d efen se co u n sel ’ s ab i l i ty t o cro ss-ex am i n e S an t an a reg ard i n g th e al l eg ed i n co n si st en cy. F in a lly , e v e n if

a ll o f th e a lle g e d in c o n s is te n c ie s h a d b e e n f u lly p r e s e n te d to the j ury , the r e i s no r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha tthe j ury w oul d ha ve r e a c he d a di ff er entverdi ct . E vi dence of C arre ra ’ s part i ci pat i on i n the robb ery w as ov erw hel m i ng . T here fore , C arre raw as no tprej ud i ce d b y def ense coun se l ’ s f

ai l ure t o c onduc tm or e e xt e ns i ve c r os s - e xa m i na t i on w i th r e s pe c tt o S a nt a na ’ s i nc ons i s t e nt t est i m o n y. N o r w as C arrera p rej u d i ced b y th e p ro secu t o r’ s o b j ect i o n t o d efen se coun se l ’ s a tt em ptt o cross -e xam i ne S ant ana or by the prosecut or’ s f ai l ure t o correc t the i ncon si st enci es i n S ant ana’ s t es t i m on y. T hu s, C arre rai s notent i t l ed t o h abea s r e l i e f ba s e d on thi s gr ound.

I I . T r i a l C our t ’ s J ury I ns truc t i ons C a rr e r a w a s notpr e

j udi c e d by the tr i a l c our t ’ s f a i l ur e t o i ns truc tthe j ury ( 1) thata r ob beryi s c om pl et ed on ce the perpetra t or re ac hes apl ac e of t em po ra ry s a f e ty , a nd ( 2) tha ta pe r s on c a nnota i d a nd abe ta f e l ony m ur de ri f

hi s pa r t i c i pa t i on5

in th e f e lo n y b e g a n a f

te rth e m u r d e ro c c u rr e d . C a rr e r ac o rr e c tly c o n te n d s th a t, ab sen tth ese i n stru ct i o n s, i tw as p o s s ib le f orthe j ury t o c onvi c thi m of f e l ony m ur de rba s e d onl y on hi s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n c r i m e s a s a n a c c e s s ory a f t e rthe f a c t– w h e n h e h e lp e d d e s tr o y th e e v id e n c e th e d a y a f te rth e r o b b e ry a n d m u r d e r s . H o w e v e r , b a s e d o n th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l, th e r e is n o t a“r e a s o n ab le pr obabi l i ty ” tha tthe j ury c onvi c t e d C a rr e r a m e r e l y be c a us e he he l pe d de s tr oy e v id e n c e th e d a y a f

te rth e m u r d e r s . See C la rk , 45 0 F . 3d at91 6. C orre ctj ury i ns truc t i ons w oul d notha ve c ha nge d the out c om e of thi s c a s e gi ve n the ov erw hel m i ng evi dence thatC arre rapart i ci pat ed i n the robb ery–w i tness es t es t i fi ed th atR u i z an d C arrera w ere ab sen tfro m a p arty d u ri n g th e t i m e o f th e m u rd ers, w i tness es sa w a s po tof bl oo d o n C arre ra ’ s pant s, and w i tness es t es t i fi ed C arre ra w as w ea ri ng snea kers w ho se sol es m at ched bl oo dy footpri nt s l ef tatthe m urder s c e ne . T hus , C a rr e r a i s note nt i t l e d t o habe a s r e l i e f ba s e d on thi s gr ound. II I. Inef fe ct i ve A ss i st ance of C ou nsel C arrera w as n o td en i ed effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel b ased o n d efen se coun se l ’ s per sonal and fi nanci al di ff i cul t i es . U nd er Str i c kland v . W as hi ngton , 466 U . S . 6 6 8 (1 9 8 4 ), t o est ab l i sh i n effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel , a d efen d an tm u st prov e: (1) def

i ci entperf

orm ance –thati s, hi s c ou nsel ’ s per form ance “ fe l l bel ow an obj ec t i ve st andard of rea sonabl enes s, ” i d. at 6 8 7

– 8 8 ; an d (2 ) p re ju d ice– th at is, “ a6

r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha t , butf orc ouns e l ’ s unpr of

e s s i ona l e rr or s , the r e s ul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent , ” id. at69 4. D ef

ense coun se l had d ec l ar ed bank rupt cyabou ta y ea r bef ore s he w as appo i nt ed as coun se l for C arre ra . F urther, n o t lo n g a f

te rs h e w a s ap p o in te d , h e rh u s b a n d s h o t h e rd u r in g a d ru n k e n a r g u m e n t, a nd s he f i l e d f ordi vor c e . C a rr e r a pr ovi de s a l i s tof e rr or s he c ont e nds w oul d not h a v e o c c u rr e d h a dd e f

e n s e c o u n s e l f

a m ilia r iz e d h e r s e lf

m o r e f u lly w ith th e c a s e . C arrera, ho w ev er, fai l s t o sh o w th atan y o f th ese al l eg ed erro rs m ad e b y d efen se c o u n s e l p r e

ju d ic e d h im . T h u s , C a rr e r a is n o t e n title d to h ab e a s r e lie f b a s e d o n th is gr ound. AF F I RME D.C a rrera v. A yers , N o. 08- 99007

P reg erso n , C i rcu i tJu d g e, d i ssen t i n g resp ect fu l l y: D ef endantC arre raw as deni ed a f ai r tri al . C arre ra ’ s def

ense att orney w as in c o m p e te n t a n d h e ru n p r o f e s s io n a l c o n d u c t p r e

ju d ic e d C a rr e r a . A s e x p la in e d in m y d isse n t t o th e p u b li sh ed o p in io n , C ar re ra w as p re ju d iced b y h is atto rn ey ’s fa i l ure t o rai se a W

h eel er c ha l l e nge t o the pr os e c ut or ’ s di s pr opor t i ona t e s tr i ke s of H is p a n ic ju r o r s . See P eopl e v . W heeler , 583 P . 2d 748 ( C a l . 1978) . I n the c ont e xt o f th is c a s e , th is p r e

ju d ic e a lo n e is s u f

f ic ie n t to r e q u ir e r e v e r s a l. Fu r th e r mo r e , Ca rr e r a ’ s d e f e n s e a tt o rn e y ’ s p e r s o n a l a n d f i n a n c i a l p r o b l e ms r e s u lte d in a n ap p a r e n t c o n f lic t o f in te r e s t: w h ile d e f

e n d in g C a rr e r a a g a in s t a m urder char ge brou gh tby the D i stri ctA tt orney’ s off i ce , C arre ra ’ s def

ense att orney w a s a l s o w or ki ng w i th tha ts a m e D i s tr i c tA tt orne y ’ s of f i c e t o s e c ur e a f

e l ony c o n v ic tio n o f

h e rh u s b a n d , w h o s h o t h e rin th e a rm a n d s a id th a t h e “m e a n t to k ill” h e r . T h e c u m u la tiv e e f

f e c t o f th e d e f e n s e c o u n s e l’s e rr o r s a n d c o n f lic t o f in te r e s t, the prosecut i on w i tness M i gu el S ant ana’ s i ncon si st entt es t i m on y, and the tri al c o u r t’s in c o rr e c t ju ry in s tru c tio n s d e p r iv e d C a rr e r a o f h is d u e p r o c e s s r ig h t to a f a ir tr ia l. A c c o r d in g ly , I w o u ld g r a n t C a rr e r a ’s r e q u e s t f o rh ab e a s r e lie f

. 

# FI LED NO V 06 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS