N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT REYNANTE PR

E, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. V. M . ALM A GER , W arde n a nd B ILL LOC KYER , Attorne y

Ge ne ra l of the State of C a lifornia , R

e sponde nt s - Appe lle e s . No. 12-55468 D.C . No. 3:07-c v-00890-W -W M C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia T hom a s J. W

he la n, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 5, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, GR

AB ER , a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r, R e yna

nte Pre , a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for a writ of ha

be a s c orpus. 

# FIL ED NOV 13 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pre c ha lle nge s the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s de te rm ination tha t his torture c onvic tion wa s supporte d by suffic ie nt e vide nc e . The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l he ld tha

t “ [a ] re a sona

b le jury c ould ha ve c onc lude d

[that the ] injurie s we re inflic te d whe n [the vic t im ] wa s unc onsc ious, tha t is, during a

pe riod whe n Pre c ould ha v e le ft the a

pa rtm e nt if his intent ha d

only be e n to ta

ke he r purse or to de fe nd him se lf a ga inst he r atta c k a nd tha t the se injurie s we re inflic te d for the purpose of inflic ting se ve re pa in for re ve n ge or Pre ’ s sa distic ple a sure .” Pe oplev . Pre , 11 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 739, 745 (C t. App. 2004). Give n the undispute d fa c t

tha t Pre c hoke d his vic tim until shewa s unc onsc ious, re m a ine d in he r a pa rtm e nt a nd bit he r e ar c a using injurie s tha

t re quire d one hundre d stitc he s, a nd onc e a ga in c hoke d R ose until shewa s unc onsc ious a se c ond tim e , the C a lifornia C o urt of Appe a l’ s de te rm i nation tha

t the e vide nc e wa s suffic ie nt to support Pre ’ s torture c onvic tion wa s not “ c ontra

ry to, or . . . a

n unre a s ona

b le a pplic ation of, c le arly

e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la w, a s de te rm i ne d by

the Supre m e C o urt of the Unite d State s,” nor wa s it

“ ba se d on a

n unre a s ona

ble de te rm ination of thefa c ts.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1)-(2). Pre ’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c l a im

ba s e d on his trial c ounse l’ s fa ilure to inte rvie w the vic tim fa ils be c a

use Pre offe rs no proof tha t his trial c ounse l fa ile d to inte rvie w the vic tim , nor doe s Pre offe r any e vide nc e of what a

n inte rvie w with thevic tim w o uld ha ve y ie lde d

tha t would ha

ve be e n be ne fic ia l to 2his de fe nse . M ore ove r, Pre ’ s c onfe s sion wa s vide ota pe d a n d offe re d

a s e v ide nc e at tria l by the prose c ution. The re fore , the C a lifornia C o urt of Appe a l’ s de c ision wa s not “unre a s ona

ble ” be c a u se Pre did not sa

tisfy Stric k

land ’ s pre judic e prong, whic h re quire s “ a re a sona

ble proba bility tha t, but for c ounse l’ s unprofe ssiona l e rrors, the re sult of theproc e e ding would ha ve be e n diffe re nt.” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1)-(2); Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). Fina lly , Pre ’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im

ba s e d on his trial c ounse l’ s fa ilure to obje c t to Jury Que stion Thre e like wise fa ils be c a use Pre did not show tha t ha d his tria l c o unse l obje c te d to thejury que stion, there would ha ve be e n

“ a re a sona

ble proba bility tha t . . . there sult of theproc e e ding would ha v e be e n diffe re nt.” Stric k

land, 466 U.S. a

t 694. Pre c annot m e e t the highly de fe re ntia l sta nda rd re quire d by

the c o m bina tion of 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1)-(2) a nd Stric k land . Se e H arrington v. Ric hte r , 131 S. C t. 770, 788 (2011) (“ The sta nda rds c re ate d by Stric k land and § 2254(d) a

re both highly

de fe re ntia l, a

nd whe n the two a

pply in ta nde m , re vie w is doubly

so.” ) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks a

nd c i tations omitte d). AFFIRM E D.

3