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.

Th e H o n o r ab l e Ra l p h R. Er i c k s o n , Ch i e f D i s tr i c tJ u d g e f

o rth e U . S. ** D i s tr i c tC our tf

orN or th D a kot a , F a r go, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

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 J A M ES D A N I EL FU EN TES, P et i t i on er- A pp el l ee , v. F E RN A N D O G O N Z A L E Z , W a r de n, R e s p o n d e n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 56903 D . C. N o . 5 : 0 9 - c v - 0 1 0 4 1 - CJ C- RZ 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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C orm a c J . C a rne y , 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 O c t obe r14, 2011

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: D . W . N E L S O N and C A L L A H A N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and E R IC K S O N , C hi ef D i stri ctJudg e. ** F e rna ndo G onz a l e z , W a r de n, appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de c i s i on t o gr a nt J a m e s F ue nt e s ’ s pe t i t i on f orhabe a s c orpus . F ue nt e s w a s c onvi c t e d i n the 

# FI LED NO V 04 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

C al i forni a S up er i or C ou rtof ai di ng and abett i ng M el ec i o R ey es i n the fi rs t -degree m urder of F ra nci sc o F erre i rai n 2 00 3. W e have j uri sdi ct i on ov erthi s app ea l pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253. W e c onc l ude tha tthe C a l i f orni a C our tof A ppe a l w a s obj e c t i ve l y r e a s onabl e i n uphol di ng F ue nt e s ’ s c onvi c t i on a nd a c c or di ngl y r e ve r s e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof F ue nt e s ’ s habe a s pe t i t i on. F ue nt e s ’ s pe t i t i on i s s ubj e c tt o the pr ovi s i ons of the A nt i - T e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c t( “ A E D P A ” ) , 28 U . S . C . §§ 2241- 2255. U nde rS e c t i on 2 2 5 4 (d ) o f A E D P A , w h er e a state c o u rt d ec id es th e m er it s o f a p etit io n er ’s const i tut i on al cl ai m , a f eder al courtm aygranthabeas re l i ef w i th res pectt o that c l a i m onl y i f

the s t a t e de c i s i on: (1) re sul t ed i n a deci si on thatw as contra ryt o, or i nv ol ved an un re as on abl e app l i ca t i on of, cl ea rl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw , as de t e rm i ne d by the S upr e m e C ourtof the U ni t e d S t a t e s ; or ( 2 ) r e s u lte d in a d e c is io n th a t w a s b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n ab le de t e rm i na t i on of

the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d i n the S t a t e c our tpr oc e e di ng. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) .

“ A s t a t e - c our tde c i s i on tha tc orr e c t l y i de nt i f i e s the gove rni ng l e ga l rul e but ap p lie s it u n r e a s o n ab ly to th e f a c ts o f a p a r tic u la rp r is o n e r ’s c a s e c e r ta in ly w o u ld q u a lif y a s a d e c is io n ‘in v o lv [ in g ] a n u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f . . . c le a r ly es t abl i shed F eder al l aw . ’ ” W i l l i am s v . T

ay lor , 5 2 9 U .S . 3 6 2 , 4 0 7 - 0 8 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . A s ta te c o u r t’s ap p lic a tio n o f “c le a r ly e s tab lis h e dF e d e r a l la w . . . m u s t b e o b je c tiv e ly3

un re as on abl e, ” L oc k

y e rv . A ndr ade , 5 3 8 U .S . 6 3 , 7 5 - 7 6 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ; s e e a l s o Wi l l i a ms , 52 9 U . S . at41 1, no tj ust“ i ncorrec tor erroneou s, ” L ocky er , 538 U . S . a t75. T he

“ cl ea rl y e st abl i shed F eder al l aw ” upo n w hi ch F uent es and the di stri ctcourtre l i ed w as J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 443 U . S . 307 ( 1979) , unde rw hi c h “ the r e l e va ntque s t i on i s w he the r , a f

t e rvi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the p r o s e c u tio n , any r a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” I d. at31 9 (em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). S i nc e the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d F ue nt e s ’ s pe t i t i on i n O c t obe r2009, the S upr e m e C our tde c i de d H arri ng ton v. R i chter , -- U . S . -- , 13 1 S . C t . 77 0 (20 11 ), C ul l en v. P i nh ol

ster , - - U . S . - - , 131 S . C t . 1388 ( 2011) , a nd C a v a z o s v . Sm ith , - - S. C t. - - , 5 6 5 U .S . - - , 2 0 1 1 W L 5 1 1 8 8 2 6 ( N o . 1 0 - 1 1 1 5 , O c t. 3 1 , 2 0 1 1 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . I n R i chter , th e C o u r t e x p la in e d th a t a n “u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n ” o f f e d e r a l la w is a n o b je c tiv e te s t th a t tu rn s o n “w h e th e rit is p o s s ib le th a t f a irm in d e d ju r is ts c o u ld di sa gree ” thatthe st at e c ou rtdeci si on m ee t s the st andards s etforth i n thatl aw . If f a irm in d e d ju r is ts c o u lds o d is a g r e e , h ab e a s r e lie f is p r e c lu d e d . R i chter , 1 3 1 S . C t. a t786. I n P i nh ol

ster , the C ou rtre i t er at ed thatA E D P A re qu i re s a dd i t i on al d e f e r e n c e t o s t a t e c o u r td e t e rmi n a t i o n s o n h ab e a s , a n d th a t“ [ w ] e h a v e s a i d t i me a nd a ga i n tha t‘ a n un re ason ab l e appl i ca t i on of fe dera l l aw i s di ff er entfr om an in c o r r e c t appl i ca t i on of fe dera l l aw . ’ ” P i nh ol ster , 131 S . C t . a t1410- 11 ( quot i ng R i chter , 131 S . C t . a t785) ( e m pha s i s i n R i chter) . I n i t s mo s tr e c e n tp o s t - A ED PA4

h ab e a s d e c is io n , C av az os , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e v e r s e d th is C o u r t’s d e c is io n to gr a nta w r i ton J

ac k s on gr ounds , r e i t e r a t i ng tha tj ur i e s , notj udge s , m us tw e i gh c o m p e tin g e v id e n c e a n d d e c id e w h e th e rth e p r o s e c u tio n ’s th e o ry o f a c a s e is c o rr e c t. C av az os , 2011 W L 5118826 a t*1, 3- 5. Un d e rC a l i f

o rn i a l a w, a p e r s o n a i d s a n d ab e t s a c r i m e wh e r e h e ( 1 ) k n o ws the “ unl a w f

ul purpos e of

the pe rpe tr a t or , ” ( 2) i nt e nds t o c om m i t , e nc our a ge , or f a c i l i t a t e the c r i m e , a nd ( 3) “ by a c tora dvi c e a i ds , pr om ot e s , e nc our a ge s or in s tig a te s ” th e c r im e . P e o p le v . M a rs h a ll , 15 C a l . 4th 1, 40 ( 1997) ( quot a t i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). T he tri al evi dence s ho w ed thati n Jun e 200 3, F uent es ac com pani ed M el ec i o R ey es , a f el l ow m em ber of the W es tS i de V er du go (“ W S V ”) gang , i n a ca r t o the ho use of F ra nci sc o and E ct or F erre i ra . (A ye area rl i erR ey es had sho tE ct or and a fri end i n a gang -r el at ed al t er ca t i on nearthe F erre i ra s’ ho use. ) R e y e s a nd F ue nt e s dr ove pa s tF r a nc i s c o, w ho w a s w or ki ng on hi s c a ri n f r ontof h is h o u s e , s to p p e d , r e v e r s e d , a n d p u lle d u p n e x t to F r a n c is c o . R e y e s r e a c h e d in h is l ap, pul l e d up a gun, a nd be ga n s hoot i ng a tF r a nc i s c o. F ue nt e s , w ho w a s i n the f r ontpa s s e nge rs e a t , l e a ne d ba c k a tthe t i m e R e y e s be ga n t o s hoot . R e y e s a nd F uent es then sped aw ayand w er e s t op ped b y the po l i ce a s ho rtt i m e l at er ; F uent es w a s s till in th e p a s s e n g e rs e a t b u t th e g u n u s e d in th e s h o o tin g w a s m is s in g . T he S t a t e ’ s ga ng e xpe r tt e s t i f i e d r e ga r di ng the s truc tur e , c ul tur e a nd hi er ar chy of the W S V gang , i ncl ud i ng thatR ey es w ou l d n othave shotF ra nci sc o5

w ith o u t f ir s t in f o rm in g F u e n te s , a n d th a t F u e n te s w o u ld n o t h a v e c o n tin u e d to corr es po nd w i th, and sho w re spec tfor, R ey es af t erthe shoo t i ng i f R ey es had

“ di sr es pect ed” F uent es by keepi ng hi m i n the dark. T he gang expertal so t es t i fi ed tha tF ue nt e s , a n a c t i ve “ up a nd c om e r ” i n the W S V ga ng, w oul d ga i n s t a tus i n the ga ng a s a r e s ul tof

the s hoot i ng, a nd tha tthe s hoot i ngs be ne f i tt e d the W S V ga ng, w h ic h w a s try in g to e s tab lis h tu r f in th e a r e a o f

th e s h o o tin g . I t w a s o b je c tiv e ly r e a s onabl e f

orthe C our tof

A ppe a l t o c onc l ude tha tthe tr i a l e vi de nc e s uppor t e d the j ury ’ s f i ndi ngs tha tF ue nt e s kne w of R e y e s ’ s pl a n t o m ur de rF r a nc i s c o, a nd tha the i nt ended t o, and d i d, ai d i n thatm urder. T he di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned thatce rt ai n al t ernat i ve i nfer ence s w er e re as on abl e, bu tnei ther J ac k s on norA E D P A a l l ow s a habe a s c our tt o pi c k a nd c h o o s e a m o n g r e a s o n ab le in f e r e n c e s a n ds u b s titu te its o w n ju d g m e n t f o rth e ju ry ’s . Se e J ac k s on , 443 U . S . a t326 ( “ A f e de r a l habe a s c our tf

a c e d w i th a r e c or d of hi st ori ca l fa ct s thatsupp ort s c on fl i ct i ng i nfer ence s m ustpres um e— even i f i tdo es no taf fi rm at i vel y app ea r i n the re cord— thatthe tri erof fa ctre sol ved any such c o n f lic ts in f a v o ro f th e p r o s e c u tio n , a n d m u s t d e f e rto th a t r e s o lu tio n .” ) ; C av az os , 2011 W L 5118826 a t*1 (J ac k s on “ m a ke s c l e a rtha ti ti s the r e s pons i bi l i ty of the j ury— no tthe court

— t o d ec i de w hatconcl usi on s s ho ul d b e dra w n from evi dence a d m itte d a t tr ia l.” ) ; i d. a t * 4 - 5 & n .1 ; R i chter , 13 1 S . C t . at78 6 (expl ai ni ng that6

A E D P A p ro h i b i t s a co u rtfro m “ treat [i n g ] th e u n reaso n ab l en ess q u est i o n as a t est of i t s c on fi dence i n the re sul ti tw ou l d rea ch un der de nov o revi ew ”) . T hi s C our t ’ s de c i s i ons i n Mitc h e ll v . P r u n ty , 10 7 F . 3d 13 37 , 13 42 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) , ov e r r ul e d on othe rgr ounds , Sa ntam ari a v. H orsley , 13 8 F . 3d 12 80 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) ( e n b a n c ) , G arci a v. C arey , 395 F . 3d 1099, 1103 ( 9th C i r . 2005) , a nd B ri ce no v. Scri bn er , 55 5 F . 3d 10 69 , 10 78 -79 (9th C i r. 20 09 ), do no tsupp ort grant i ng F uent es habeas re l i ef . N oton l y do tho se ca se s pre -dat e C av az os , R i chter , a nd P i nh ol

ster , the y c onc e rne d e vi de nc e of ga ng m e m be r s hi p orge ne r i c ga ng expertt es t i m on y w here there w as no other e vi dence t o p rove i nt ent . In thi s c as e, the S t a t e pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e aboutF ue nt e s ’ s r ol e i n a nd a c t i ons dur i ng the s h o o tin g , a s w e ll a s s p e c if ic a n d th o r o u g h g a n g e x p e r t te s tim o n y . Juan H. v. A l l en , 408 F . 3d 1262, 1276 ( 9th C i r . 2005) , a l s o i s i nappos i t e be c a us e the r e the de f e nda nt

“ di d notdo ors a y a ny thi ng be f or e , dur i ng ora f

t e rthe s hoot i ngs f

r om w hi c h a re as on abl e f

ac t fi nd ercoul d i nferan i nt entor pu rpose” t o ai d and abeti n m urder. W e app re ci at e thatthe S t at e’ s c as e her e r el i ed heavi l y on ci rc um st ant i al ev i d en ce, an d th atth i s ev i d en ce m ay h av e su p p o rt ed i n feren ces o th er th an th o se th e ju ry d r e w . H o w e v e r , u n d e rth e d e f e r e n c e r e q u ir e d b y A E D P A , th e o n ly r e l e va ntque s t i on i s w he the rthe C our tof A ppe a l ’ s c onc l us i on tha ts uf f i c i e nt evi dence s up po rt ed F uent es ’ s c on vi ct i on w as “ so l ac ki ng i n j ust i fi ca t i on thatthere w a s a n e rr orw e l l unde r s t ood a nd c om pr e he nde d i n e xi s t i ng l a w be y ond a ny7

po ss i bi l i ty f

or fa i rm i nd ed di sa gree m ent . ” R i chter , 1 3 1 S . C t . at7 8 6 -8 7 . B ecau se F ue nt e s ha s notm e tthi s hi gh thr e s hol d, the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n gr a nt i ng F u e n te s ’s h ab e a s p e titio n . R EVER SED .