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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 1 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 D O N A LD RA Y W ELLS, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. R OS E AN NE C AMP B E L L ; J OA N P A L M A T E E R , W a r de n, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 35006 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 6 - c v - 0 0 0 1 8 - MA 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

O r e gon M a l c ol m F . M a r s h, 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 D e c e m be r8, 2009

P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: F A R R IS , D . W . N E L S O N an dB E R Z O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D ona l d W e l l s , a n i nm a t e i n the c us t odyof the O r e gon D e pa rtm e ntof C orre ct i on s, appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on for aw ri tof habeas c o rp u s . 

# FI LED MA R 22 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

I . I n e f f e c t iv e A s s is t a n c e R e la t e d t o t h e M o t io n t o S u p p r e s s W e lls ’ s H o s p it a lB ed S tate m en ts 1 . W e lls f

a ir lyp r e s e n te d h is in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e c la im to th e s ta te p o s tconv i ct i on court . W el l s w as re qu i re d t o p re se ntt o the st at e c ou rtthe “ subst ant i al e q u iv a le n t” o f

th e c la im h e p r e s e n te din f e d e r a l c o u rt. L o

p ez v. Sch ri ro , 491 F . 3d 1 0 2 9 , 1 0 4 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . C o n tr a ryto th e s ta te c o u rt’s r e a d in g o f h is s ta te pet i t i on for post -c on vi ct i on re l i ef , W el l s di d n otsay and coul d n othave m eantthat tri al coun se l fa i l ed t o m ake anym o t i o n t o su p p ress th e h o sp i t al -b ed st at em en t s; c ouns e l di d s o m ove . I ns t e a d, W e l l s ’ s c l a i m w a s di r e c t e d a tthe i na de qua c yof the m ot i on tha ttr i a l c ouns e l di d f i l e : H e a l l e ge d tha ttr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve b ecau se h e fai l ed t o arg u e th atW el l s’ s Mi r anda r ig h ts w e r e v io la te d . W e lls ’s s ta te c la im th u s f

o c u s e d o n w h e th e rc o u n s e l p r o v id e din a d e q u a te r e p r e s e n ta tio n w ith r e ga r d t o w he the rW e l l s ’ s hos pi t a l - be d s t a t e m e nt s w e r e obt a i ne d unl a w f ul l y , the s a m e g e n e r a l is s u e r a is e d h e r e . M or e ove r , a s i n L op ez , W e l l s e l abor a t e d i n the s t a t e c ourton the ba s i s f or hi s I A C c l a i m . I n p ro se supp l em ent al do cum ent s thatthe po st -c on vi ct i on court al l ow ed W el l s t o fi l e, W el l s e xp l ai ned thatthe supp re ss i on m ot i on fi l ed by tri al c ouns e l w a s i na de qua t e be c aus e W e l l s ha d “ a s ke d [ tr i a l c ouns e l ] t o f i l e am ot i on or3

r e que s ta n e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng on the 1985 s uppr e s s i on to i nc lude the Fe de r al s uppr e s s i on . . . bu t[he] never di d. ” ( E m p h a s is a d d e d .) I n h is s ta te p o s tconv i ct i on appeal and p et i t i on for r evi ew , W el l s r ei t er at ed thathi s tri al coun se l “f a ile d to . . . e

ffe c tiv e lya r g u e f

o rs u p p r e s s io n ” o f

th e h o s p ita l- b e ds ta te m e n ts . ( E m pha s i s a dde d. ) T he s t a t e c ourtr e c or d i nc l ude d the f e de r a l s uppr e s s i on rul i ng, b e c au s e th e s ta te ap p e lla te c o u rt to o kju d ic ia l n o tic e o f it o n d ir e c t r e v ie w . W e lls th u s p r e s e n te d to th e s ta te c o u rts th e “s u b s ta n tia l e q u iv a le n t” o f h is f e d e r a l c la im . L op ez , 4 9 1 F .3 d a t 1 0 4 0 . 2. O n the m er i t s, W el l s m ustprov e both thatcoun se l ’ s per form ance w as d e f ic ie n t a n d th a t th e d e f

ic ie n c yp r e

ju d ic e dh is c a s e . Str i c kland v . W as hi ngton , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . W el l s s at i sf

i es the fi rs tpron g o f Str i c kland b ec au se trial co u n se l’ s perf orm ance “ fe l l bel ow an obj ec t i ve st andard of rea sonabl enes s. ” 466 U . S . at 6 8 8 . T r ia l c o u n s e l, b e f

o r e th e r e tr ia l, r e n e w e dW e lls ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s h is h o s p ita l- b e d s ta te m e n ts , b u t h e d idn o t p r o v id e a n yr e a s o n f o rth e s ta te c o u rt to r e c ons i de rthe e a r l i e rrul i ng de ny i ng s uppr e s s i on. A c ontr a ryf e de r a l rul i ng a r i s i ng f r om the ve rys a m e f

a c t s , w hi l e notc onc l us i ve , c e rt a i nl yw oul d ha ve gi ve n the s ta te c o u rt r e a s o n to ta k e as e c o n d lo o k . W e lls h im s e lf s to o du p b e f

o r e th e s ta te tr ia l c o u rt a n d tr ie d to m a k e c le a rth e c o n te n tio n th a t th e c o u rt s h o u ldr e c o n s id e rits4

deni al of hi s s up pres si on m ot i on i n l i gh tof the fe dera l court ’ s s ub se qu ent , contrary rul i ng, butthe j udge di d notunde r s t a nd W e l l s . T r i a l c ouns e l di d notm a ke a ny a tt e m ptt o c l a r i f

ythe poi nt . T he n, i n the he a r i ng on the r e ne w e d s uppr e s s i on m ot i on , tri al coun se l al so fa i l ed t o m ake the ar gu m entW el l s had tri ed t o m ake; i nd ee d, the transcr i ptsugg es t s he m ayno thave un ders t oo d thatthere w as an earl i er fe dera l rul i ng . T he performance of the tw o l aw ye rs i n n otm aki ng sure the tri al j ud ge on re tri al kn ew of the fe dera l rul i ng w as obj ec t i vel y unrea sonabl e. W el l s al so sat i sfi es Str i c kland ’ s s e c o n dr e q u i r e m e n t , b e c au s e h e h a s s h o wn th at“ th ere i s a reaso n ab l e p ro b ab i l i ty th at , b u tfo r co u n sel ’ s u n p ro fessi o n al erro rs, the r e s ul tof

the pr oc e e di ng w oul d ha ve be e n di f f e r e nt . ” 466 U . S . a t694. T he r e s ponde nt s c ont e nd tha tthe s t a t e tr i a l j udge , J udge L uuki ne n, w oul d notha ve c ons i de r e d W e l l s ’ s r e ne w e d s uppr e s s i on m ot i on e ve n i f he ha d know n aboutthe fe d er al ru li n g b y J u d g e R ed d en , b ec au se Ju d g e B len sly’s 1 9 8 5 d en ial o f W ells’s f ir s t s u p p r e s s io n m o tio n –s u m m a r ilya f f irm e do n ap p e a l –w a s la w o f th e c a s e . B utO re go n l aw prov i des that“ [a ] m ot i on t o sup pres s w hi ch has been deni ed m ay be re new ed, i n the di sc re t i on of the court , . . . as the i nt er es t s of j ust i ce re qu i re . ” O R . R EV . S TAT . § 1 33 . 67 3(2). T he O re go n C ou rtof A pp ea l s has i nt erpret ed that st atut e a s a l l ow i ng a def endantt o renew a m ot i on t o sup pres s bef ore anew tri al even w here the appel l at e c ou rtaf fi rm ed the i ni t i al deni al of the m ot i on and o rder edState v . C uster , 93 4 P . 2d 45 5 (O r. C t . A pp . 19 97 ), ci t ed by the di stri ct 1 court , i s nott o the contrary . T here , the appel l at e c ou rthel d o nl y that , w here i thad re m anded for a new tri al because e vi dence s ho ul d h ave been suppress ed, the tri al c ourtha d no author i tyt o r e vi s i ta nd de nythe de f e nda nt ’ s s uppr e s s i on m ot i on a tthe state’s r e q u e s t. A l though the S upr e m e C ourthe l d i n C o lo r a do v . C o n n e lly , 479 U . S . 157, 2 167 ( 1986) , tha t“ c oe r c i ve pol i c e a c t i vi tyi s ane c e s s a rypr e di c a t e t o the f i ndi ng th ata co n fessi o n i s n o t‘ v o l u n t ary’ w i th i n th e m ean i n g o f th e D u e P ro cess C l au se of the F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e nt , ” W e l l s ’ s r e ne w e d m ot i on t o s uppr e s s r e l i e d noton f e de r a l buton O r e gon l a w . T he O r e gon C ourtof A ppe a l s di d nothol d unt i l 2001 that“ a s uspect ’ s per sonal char ac t er i st i cs and ci rc um st ance s a s am att erof l aw cann otal on e r ender s t at em ent s i nv ol un t ary. ” State ex r e l. J uv e ni le D e

p’ t of W as h. C o u n t y v. D ef o rd , 3 4 P . 3 d 6 7 3 , 6 8 4 (O r. C t . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). B efo re th at , “ [t ] h e t est f orvol unt a r i ne s s of

ac onf e s s i on [ w a s ] w he the r , unde rthe t ot a l i tyof the ci rc um st ance s, i tw as the prod uctof an es se nt i al l y f re e and un constra i ned cho i ce , de f e nda nt ’ s w i l l w a s notove rborne a nd hi s c apa c i tyf ors e l f - de t e rm i na t i on w a s not c r i t i c a l l yi m pa i r e d. . . . T he r e l e va nts urr oundi ng c i r c um s t a nc e s i nc l ude both the c h a r a c te ro f

th e a c c u s e d a n d th e d e ta ils o f th e in te rr o g a tio n . . . . N o s in g le f a c to ris c ontr ol l i ng, a nd the s t a t e ha s the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng the vol unt a r i ne s s of the confes si on . ” S ta te v . D a v is , 78 0 P . 2d 80 7, 80 8 (O r. C t . A pp . 19 89 ) ( i nt ernal c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ; c om

par e Mi nc e

yv . A r i z ona , 4 3 7 U .S . 3 8 5 , 4 0 1 - 0 2 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . T hu s, Judg e R edden’ s rul i ng , al tho ug h m ade before C o n n e lly , c oul d w e l l ha ve b e e n p e r s u a s iv e au th o r ityin O r e g o n s ta te c o u rt a t th e tim e o f W e lls ’s r e tr ia l. 5 an e w tr ia l o n d if

f e r e n t g r o u n d s . Se e S ta te v . C o r b in , 5 3 9 P .2 d1 1 1 3 , 1 1 1 4 ( O r . C t. A pp . 19 75 ). T hu s, Judg e L uu ki nen h ad di sc re t i on t o con si der W el l s’ s r enew ed

1 m ot i on. T he e xi s t e nc e of

ac ontr a ryf

e de r a l rul i ng appl y i ng the s a m e s t a nda r d, 2 a r is in g f r o m th e s a m e f

a c ts , w o u ldh a v e p r o v id e dap o w e r f u l r e a s o n to r e v is it J u d g e Bl e n s l y ’ s 1 9 8 5 ru l i n g . Co n s i d e r i n g th a tJ u d g e Lu u k i n e n w a s n o tth e s a me6

ju d g e w h o h a d in itia llyd e n ie d W e lls ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s , th e r e is ar e a s o n ab le p r o b ab ilityth a t J u d g e R e d d e n ’s p e r s u a s iv e o p in io n w o u ldh a v e c o n v in c e dh im , in the i nt e r e s t s of

j us t i c e , t o c ons i de ra nd gr a ntW e l l s ’ s r e ne w e d s uppr e s s i on m ot i on. 3. F i nal l y, there i s are as on abl e probabi l i ty thatas t o the att em pt ed m urder c ounti nvol vi ng O f

f i c e rR a w l i ns ( c ount3) a nd the f i r s t - de gr e e r obbe ryc ount i nv ol vi ng V i ol etY un gen (coun t1), the ou t com e of W el l s’ s tri al w ou l d h ave been d i f f e r e n th a d h i s h o s p i t a l - b e d s t a t e m e n t s b e e n s u p p r e s s e d . “ A d e f e n d a n t ’ s o wn c onf e s s i on i s pr obabl ythe m os tpr oba t i ve a nd da m a gi ng e vi de nc e tha tc a n be adm i tt ed agai nsthi m . ” Moor e v . C z e rni ak , 574 F . 3d 1092, 1112 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng A r iz o n a v . Fu lm in a n te , 499 U . S . 279, 296 ( 1991) ) . D e t e c t i ve K oh l m ey er ’ s t es t i m on y thatW el l s s ai d h e w ou l d h ave ki l l ed O ff i ce r R aw l i ns had he re m em bere d t o l oad h i s gun w as extre m el y dam agi ng . T he on l y other e vi dence a s t o thi s c ha r ge w a s O f f i c e rR a w l i ns ’ s t e s t i m onytha tW e l l s , w hi l e “ about20, 25 y a r d s a w a yf

r o m h im ,” tu rn e d to f

a c e h im , p o in te das a w e d - o f f s h o tg u n in h is di r e c t i on, a nd “

j e rk[ e d] ” the gun. R a w l i ns di d nott e s t i f ytha tW e l l s pul l e d the tr ig g e r , a n d W e lls d idn o t f ir e a n ys h o ts a t R a w lin s , a s th e g u n w a s n o t lo a d e d . N o tab ly , th e ju rya c q u itte d W e lls o f th e a tte m p te dm u r d e ro f O f f ic e rT h o m p s o n . A l tho ug h the j ury m i gh thave conv i ct ed W el l s of a tt em pt ed m urder of O ff i ce r7

R a w lin s b a s e d o n R a w lin s ’s te s tim o n ya lo n e , th e r e is as u b s ta n tia l lik e lih o o dth a t it w o u ldn o t h a v e . A s to th e f

ir s t- d e g r e e r o b b e ryc h a r g e in v o lv in g V io le t Y u n g e n , th e o n ly evi dence thatW el l s w as arm ed w i th a fi re arm w hi l e he w as i n the st ore w as D e t e c t i ve K ohl m e y e r ’ s t e s t i m onytha tW e l l s t ol d hi m he ha d s tuf f e d tw o guns d o w n h is p a n ts . T hus , W e l l s ha s e s t abl i s he d pr e j udi c e a s t o c ount s 1 a nd 3. H e ha s not e s t abl i s he d pr e

j udi c e a s t o the r e m a i ni ng c ount s on w hi c h he w a s c onvi c t e d, a s the e vi de nc e a ga i ns thi m on thos e c ount s w a s ove rw he l m i ng a nd the c onf e s s i on a d d r e s s e d th e m in le s s d e ta il.

I I . Re ma i n i n g Cl a i ms W e lls ’s r e m a in in g c la im s f a il. 1. W el l s’ s c l ai m thatthe tri al courtvi ol at ed hi s r i gh tt o d ue process un der the F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e ntw he n i tr e f us e d t o c ons i de rhi s r e ne w e d s uppr e s s i on m ot i on i s pr oc e dur a l l yde f aul t e d. W e l l s r a i s e d no f e de r a l c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s on d ir e c t ap p e a l, a n d in h is s ta te p e titio n f o rp o s t- c o n v ic tio n r e lie f h e r a is e do n ly c la im s o f in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l.8

2. W e l l s ’ s c l a i m tha ttr i a l c ouns e l pr ovi de d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e byf

a i l i ng to m o v e f

o rs e v e r a n c e o f

th e f e lo n in p o s s e s s io n c h a r g e s is a ls o p r o c e d u r a lly d e f au lte d . W e lls d idn o t r a is e a n ys e v e r a n c e c la im in h is s ta te p e titio n f o rp o s tc o n v ic tio n r e lie f

. A lth o u g h h e d idd is c u s s s e v e r a n c e in s u p p le m e n ta l p ro se fi l i ng s, the st at e post -c on vi ct i on courtperm i tt ed supp l em ent at i on on l y f or pu rposes o f e x p a n d in g o n c la im s r a is e d in th e o r ig in a l p e titio n . 3. T he s t a t e pos t - c onvi c t i on c ourt ’ s hol di ng tha ttr i a l c ouns e l di d not prov i de i neff

ec t i ve as si st ance by fa i l i ng t o o bj ec tt o W el l s’ s s hackl i ng w as no tan un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of Str i c kland . W e l l s hi m s e l f di d obj e c tt o the s ha c kl i ng, a nd the tr i a l c ourtr e a s onabl yf ound tha ts ha c kl i ng w a s appr opr i a t e gi ve n the se veri ty of the offens es w i th w hi ch W el l s w as char ged and gi ven thatW el l s’ s l eg b r a c e w a s n o t v is ib le to th e ju ry . 4. F i nal l y, as sum i ng W el l s’ s f eder al habeas pet i t i on adequat el y pre se nt ed the 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 i n f

a i l i ng t o a r gue f

orm e r ge rof s e nt e nc e s w i th r e s pe c tt o c ount s 2 a nd 7, the s t a t e pos t - c onvi c t i on c ourt ’ s r e j e c t i on of thi s c l a i m w a s notunr e a s onabl e . O r e gon l a w appl i c abl e a tthe t i m e of the o f f e n s e p r o v id e d th a t th e v ic tim o f ar o b b e ryis th e p e r s o n a g a in s t w h o m ath r e a t is m a d e , s e e State v . D i l lm an , 58 0 P . 2d 56 7, 56 8-69 (O r. C t . A pp . 19 78 ), so O ff i ce r T h o m p s o n w a s th e v ic tim o f b o th r o b b e r ie s . N o n e th e le s s , “[ i]t is n o t n e c e s s a r ily9

true thata c on t i nu ou s s equence of cr i m i nal ac t s di re ct ed ata s i ng l e vi ct i m can l ea d t o o nl y one se nt ence . ” State v . Kes sler , 6 8 6 P . 2 d3 4 5 , 3 4 8 ( Or . 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e two the f t s W e l l s c om m i tt e d r e f

l e c t e d di f

f e r e ntc r i m i na l obj e c t i ve s : he s t ol e the pi c kup tru c kin a n a tte m p t to e s c ap e f r o m p o lic e w ith m o n e yh e h a da lr e a d ys to le n . See i d. T hu s, the st at e post -c on vi ct i on courtre as on abl y det erm i ned thatW el l s had fa i l ed t o d em on stra t e pre j ud i ce un der Str i c kland . I I I . C on c l u s i on W e r e v e r s e th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a n dr e m a n dw ith in s tru c tio n s to gr a ntthe w r i tof

habe a s c orpus a s t o W e l l s ’ s c onvi c t i ons on c ount s 1 a nd 3. T he S t a t e s ha l l r e tryW e l l s w i thi n ar e a s onabl e t i m e on thos e c ount s ors ha l l va c a t e the c onvi c t i ons f

ora tt e m pt e d m ur de rof

O f f i c e rR a w l i ns a nd f

i r s t - de gr e e r obbe ryof V i o l etY u n g en an d resen t en ce W el l s t o acco u n tfo r th e v acat ed co n v i ct i o n s. R E VE R S E D A ND R E MAND E D.