N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
FR ANK R ALPH LAPENA, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. GEOR GE GRIGAS; ADAM PAUL LAXALT, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-16154 D.C . No. 2:00-c v-00960-R

FB -NJK
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R ic ha rd F. B oulwa

re II, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

16, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , N.R . SM ITH, a nd FR IEDLAND, C i rc uit Judge s . Frank La Pe na

a p pe a ls from

the distric t

c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for a writ of ha be a s c orpus. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2253, a nd we
a ffirm
. 1 

# FIL ED JUN 05 2018 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. 1 W e grant LaPe n a ’ s M otion to Expa nd the R e c ord on Appe a l.1. The re wa s suffic ie n t e vide nc e to c onvic t La Pe n a . “ [A] fte r vie w ing the
e vide nc e in the light m o st fa vora ble to the prose c ution, any ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c ould ha v e found the e sse ntia l e le m e nts of thec rim e be y ond a re a sona ble doubt.” J ac k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Although W e akla nd wa s signific antly im

p e a c he d, he te stifie d tha

t La Pe na hire d him

to kill Hilda

Kra use , and a spe c ts of W e akla

nd’ s te stim ony we re c orroborate d by othe r witne sse s: (1)
one of La Pe na ’ s c e llm ate s in prison te stifie d tha t La Pe na a dm itte d he ha d hire d W e akla nd to m urde r Hilda ; (2) W e akla

nd’ s form e r wife c orroborate d va rious
a spe c ts of the c rim e , inc l uding thefa c t tha t the je we l ry

stole n from the Kra u se re side nc e a

ppe a re d on he r dre sse r the m orning a fte r Hilda wa s m urde re d ; a nd (3) W e akla nd’ s a c c om

plic e in the robbe ry

c orroborate d the pla

nning, bre a

k in, a nd robbe ry of the Kra

use re side nc e . Furthe r, e vide nc e re ga rding the m anne r of Hilda ’ s de ath wa s not inc onsiste nt with W e akla nd’ s te stim ony . 2. Assum ing a

fre e sta nding innoc e nc e c l a im

is via ble , La Pe na

ha s fa ile d to
m e e t the burde n to “ a ffirm ative ly prove tha t he is proba

bly innoc e nt.” J

one s v . Tay lor , 763 F.3d 1242, 1246 (9th C ir. 2014) (quota t ion m arks a

nd c ita tion
om i tte d). The re is no “ a ffirm ative [] ” e vide nc e that La Pe na is innoc e nt. Id. The phy sic a l DNA e vide nc e doe s not disprove tha t W e a k la nd did wha

t he sa i d he did, nor tha t La Pe na hire d him to do it. La stly , the jury ha d be e n pre se nte d with
2e xte nsive im pe a c hm e nt e v ide nc e re g arding W e akla n d be fore it c o nvic te d La Pe na . La Pe na ha s fa ile d to m e e t his burde n to prove he is a c tua lly innoc e nt. 3. La Pe na ha s fa i le d to prove he re c e ive d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l (IAC ). 2 “ To e sta

b lish de fic ie nt pe rform anc e , a pe rson c h a lle n g ing a

c onvic tion
m ust show tha

t ‘ c ounse l’ s re pre se ntation fe ll be low a n obje c tive sta

nda rd of
re a s ona ble ne s s.’ ” H

arrington v . Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 104 (2011) (quoting Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)). W he n both AEDPA re vie w and Stric k land re v ie w a

pply , both “ h ighly de fe re n tia l ” sta nda rds a pply “ doubly so.” Id. at 105 (quota

t ion m a rks a nd c ita tion omitte d). First, LaPe n a ’ s tria l c ounse l did not re nde r IAC in his im pe a c hm e nt of W e akla nd. Unde r the § 2254(d) sta nda rd, e ve n if tria l c ounse l c ould ha v e furthe r im pe a c h e d W e ak la

nd, we c a nnot sa y tha t La Pe n a ’ s tria l c o unse l re nde re d de fic ie nt re pre se ntation by

not furthe r im

pe a c hing W e akla

nd re g arding w h

y he un-re c ante d his te stim ony . H

arrington , 562 U.S. a

t 105 (holding the sta

nda rd is “ whe the r the re is any re asonable

argume nt that c ounse l sa tisfie d Stric k

land ’ s d e fe re ntia l sta nda rd” (e m pha sis a dde d)). W e ak la

nd wa s signific antly im

p e a c he d, inc l uding with e vide nc e tha

t W e akla nd (1) ha d re c e ive d a de a l from the sta te to te stify

2 La Pe na only ra ise s four c la im s of IAC in his brie fing be fore this c ourt. The re fore , a

ny othe r c la im s a

re wa ive d. Smith v . Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th C ir. 1999). 3a ga inst La

Pe na , (2) ha d c ha

nge d his story

m ultipletim e s, (3) ha d

be e n c o nvic te d of pe rjury , a nd (4) wa s c onside re d a “ psy c hopa thic lia r” by a psy c hologist. State

v . LaPe n a , 968 P.2d 750, 755 (Nev. 1998). Se c ond, it wa s not unre a sona ble for the sta

t e c o urt to c onc lude tha

t La Pe na did not re c e ive IAC by

his c ounse l’ s fa ilure to proc ure the te s tim o ny of C osta nz a . All the e vide nc e tha

t C o sta nz a would ha ve pre se nte d wa s a lre a dy

be fore the jury through othe r witne sse s, C onsta nz a told theprose c ution tha

t “ he ha d told thepolic e a ll he kne w y e ars a go,” and La Pe na ne ve r obta i ne d a

n a ffidavit from C osta

nz a re ga rding w hat

a dditiona l e v i de nc e C osta nz a c ould provide
. Id. at 758-59. Third, it wa s not unre a sona ble for the sta

te c ourt to c onc l ude tha

t La Pe na did not re c e ive IAC through his tria l c ounse l’ s a lle ge d fa ilure to ha ve La Pe na

te stify in his own de fe nse . The Ne va d a Supre m e C ourt he ld tha

t “ La Pe na m a de an inform e d, strate gic c hoic e not to te stify in the se c ond tria l.” Id. at 756. Nota bly , La Pe na c onc e de d at the sta

te e vide ntia

ry he aring tha

t he wa s a ware he c o uld te stify

and that his “ te stim ony

we n t poorly

at his first trial .” Id. La Pe n a a lso a dm itte d tha

t he disc usse d te stify ing with c ounse l, a nd his c ounse l m a inta ine d tha t he wishe d to

“ av oid the ‘ e xpe c te d

rigorous a

nd thorough c ross-e xam ination,’ ” whic h c ould like ly inc lude te stim ony a

b o ut a nothe r c rim ina l prose c ution. Id.

4Fina lly , La Pe na fa ile d to a de quate ly ra ise his a

rgum e nt tha

t his tria l c ounse l provide d IAC by

fa iling to e xplore and de ve l op a c onne c tion be twe e n W e akla nd
and M arvin Kra

use . La Pe na

ra ise s this issue

in his informa l brie f, but fa i ls to
m uste r any argum e n t or fa c tua l ba sis for it. There fore , the issue is a ba n d one d. C rimeJ ustic e & Am., Inc . v . Hone a , 876 F.3d 966, 978 (9th C ir. 2017) (“ Issue s ra ise d in a

brie f whic h a

re not supporte d by

argum e nt a

re de e m e d a

b andone d.” (c ita tion omitte d)). 4. La Pe na fa i ls to ra ise a

c onstitutiona

l viola t ion in his alle gation tha

t the prose c ution viola

te d his rights unde

r Brady v . Mary l

and , 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by not disc losing va

rious e xc ulpa

tory e vide nc e during thegrand jury proc e e dings. The re is no fe d e ra l right to ha ve e xc ulpa

tory e v ide nc e pre se nte d be fore a grand jury , Unite d State

s v . W illiams , 504 U.S. 36, 55 (1992); the re fore , suc h a

c la im
c annot be grounds for a

pe tition for ha

be a s c o rpus. 5. La Pe na fa i le d to e xha

u st his c onfronta

tion c l a im and, e ve n if we a ddre ss the m e rits, he ha s fa ile d to de m onstra te pre j udic e . “ A pe titione r ha s not sa tisfie d the e xha ustion re q uire m e nt unle ss he ha s fa irly pre se nte d his c la im

to the highe st sta te c o urt.” Roe ttge n v . C

ope land, 33 F.3d 36, 38 (9th C ir. 1994) (pe r c uriam ). La Pe na ’ s a

rgum e nt to the Ne va da

Supre m e C ourt did not “ fa irly pre se n t[] his
c la im .” Id. La Pe na ’ s ope ning brie f a t be st only va gue ly re fe rs to a

fe de ra l
5c onstitutiona l que stion; his re

p ly brie f only

c ite s a sta te c a se (whic h c ite d a

fe de ra l
c a se , re ga rding bias , not prope nsity ). H iiv ala v . W

ood , 195 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th C ir. 1999) (“ [G] e n e ra l a

ppe a ls to broa d c o nstitutiona l princ iple s, suc h

a s due proc e s s, e qua l prote c tion, a nd the right to a

fa ir tria l , a

re insuffic ie nt to e sta

blish
e xha ustion.” ). Eve n if we re a c h the m e rits of the que stion, La Pe na wa s not pre j udic e d by

the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to lim it W e akla nd’ s c ross e xam ination. As note d supra , W e akla

nd wa s signific antly

im pe a c he d, a

nd furthe r c rosse xam ination re ga

rding whe the r W e akla

nd ha d a prope nsity

to m urde r for ple a sure doe s not c ha

n ge what W e akla

nd te stifie d

to a nd othe rs c orroborate d. AFFIRM E D.

6