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 N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 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 AR L OS MONT OY A, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. K I M J O N E S , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 35695 D. C. No . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 3 7 9 - BL W 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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

I da ho B . L y nn W i nm i l l , 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 F e brua ry 4, 2013

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: F IS H E R , G O U L D , an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C ar l os M on t oya app ea l s the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al of hi s pet i t i on for a w r i tof habe a s c orpus , f

i l e d pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 2254. W e r e vi e w de novo the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f th e p e titio n . W

hi t e v . M artel , 6 0 1 F .3 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 3 ( 9 th



# FI LED FEB 14 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSC i r . 2010) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . 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 r m. 1. M ont oy a w a s c ha r ge d w i th thr e e c ount s of l e w d c onduc tw i th a m i nor un der the age of s i xt ee n, i n v i ol at i on of Idaho C od e § 18 -150 8. T he fi rs tcoun tw as f or“ m a nua l / ge ni t a l c ont a c tw i th the i nt e ntof appe a l i ng t o, a r ous i ng, orgr a t i f y i ng th e s e x u a l d e s i r e s o f

[ M o n t o y a ] . ” Th e s e c o n d a n d th i r d c o u n t s u s e d th e s a me l angu age, exce ptthe se cond coun tw as for “ oral / geni t al cont ac t ” a nd the thi rd w as for “ geni t al / geni t al cont ac t . ” A ttri al , the j ury w as t ol d i n Instruct i on N o. 18 that the s t a t e ha d t o pr ove , i n r e l e va ntpa r t , tha tM ont oy a ha d “ c om m i tt e d a n a c tof m anual -geni t al cont ac tor oral -geni t al cont ac tor geni t al -geni t al cont ac torany other lew d o r lasci vi ou s act up on or w i th the bo dy of [the vi ct i m ] , ” a nd thatthe ac t w as i nt ended “ t o arouse, appeal t o, or grat i fy the l ustor pass i on s or s exual desi re s of ei ther of them . ” ( em ph as es added). 2. O n d i re ctre vi ew , the Idaho C ou rtof A pp ea l s det erm i ned thatJury I ns truc t i on N o. 18 va r i e d f r om the c ha r gi ng doc um e nt , a nd tha tthi s va r i a t i on v io la te d M o n to y a ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to n o tic e . T h e I d a h o C o u r t o f A p p e a ls n e v e r th e le s s a f

f ir m e d th e c o n v ic tio n o n th e g r o u n d th a t th e e rr o rw a s h a r m le s s . T he on l y i ss ue before thi s c ou rti s w hether the error w as prej ud i ci al un der B re cht v. A br aham s on , 50 7 U . S . 61 9 (19 93 ). A n i nstruct i on al error i s pre j ud i ci al un der B r e c ht “ i f, af t erre vi ew i ng the re cord as a w ho l e, [the court ] concl ud e[ s] thattherew as a su b st an t i al an d i n j u ri o u s effect or influen ce o n th e v erd i ct , o r i f [th e co u rti s]

‘ l ef ti n g ra ve do ub t ’ as t o w hether there w as such an ef fe ct . ” P ul i do v. Chron es , 629 F . 3d 1007, 1012 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( quot i ng Kot t eakos v . U ni t ed Stat es , 3 2 8 U . S. 750, 765 ( 1946) ) . H e r e , the e rr ordi d notha ve a s ubs t a nt i a l ori nj ur i ous e f f e c tor i nfl uence on the verdi ct . T he on l y tw o w i tness es w ho t es t i fi ed attri al w er e M ont oy a a nd the vi c t i m . B e c a us e M ont oy a of f e r e d onl y a ge ne r a l de ni a l of the vi c t i m ’ s t e s t i m ony — a nd di d noti m pe a c h the vi c t i m orof f e ra nothe rve r s i on of ev en ts — th e ju ry h ad to d eter m in e w h eth erto b eliev e e ith erth e v icti m ’s t e s t i m ony orM ont oy a ’ s t e s t i m ony . T he r e f or e the j ury m us tha ve c r e di t e d the vi c t i m ’ s t e s t i m ony tha tde s c r i be d s pe c i f i c a c t s c ons i s t e ntw i th the c ha r gi ng d o c u m e n t. 3. Mo n t o y a a l s o r a i s e d th r e e u n c e r t i f i e d i s s u e s i n h i s o p e n i n g b r i e f . He c ont e nds tha t( 1) pr os e c ut or i a l m i s c onduc tvi ol a t e d hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s , ( 2) he w a s de pr i ve d of

hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s t o e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l , a nd ( 3) he w a s de pr i ve d of

hi s r i ghtt o a s pe e dy tr i a l . M ont oy a , how e ve r , ha s notm a de a s ubs t a nt i a l s how i ng of the de ni a l of

a ny of the s e r i ght s , a nd the r e f or e w e de c l i ne to is s u e a c e r tif

ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility o n th e s e u n c e r tif ie d is s u e s . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 22 53 (c )( 2). AF F I R ME D.