N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M AUR IC E LEW IS,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. P. L. VASQUEZ,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 13-56844 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-04778-DOC -M R W
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 2, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SILVER

M A N, IKUTA, a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t M a uric e Le wis’ se c ond
am e nde d ha

be a s pe tition wa s tim e ly

file d. The 1993 psy c hologic a l re p o rt, whic h form s the fa c tua l pre dic ate of Le wis’ c la im , wa s not inc l ude d in his 1993 c a se file
. Le wis’ a p pointe d fe de ra l ha

be a s c ounse l disc ove re d the re port only by following 

# FIL ED SEP 16 2016 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.Pa ge 2 of 5

up on a c ry ptic , one -pa ge orde r tha

t a uthoriz e d two doc tors a

n d a n inve stiga

tor to visit Le wis. The distric t c o urt c orre c tly found tha

t, give n Le wis’ sta

tus a s a pro se inc a rc e rate d inm ate and the m e nta l c ha lle n ge s he fa c e d, Le wis c o uld not ha v e

“ naviga te d the la by rinthineworld of thesta

te c ourt re c ords sy ste m ” to find the 1993 re port on his own. Thus, Le wis’ fa ilure to disc o ve r the re port wa s not a fa ilure to e xe rc ise re a sona ble dilige n c e in the c irc um sta nc e s . Se e Ford v
. Gonzale z , 683 F.3d 1230, 1235 (9th C ir. 2012). 2. Le wis c onte nds tha

t his a ttorne y re nde re d ine ffe c tive a s sista

nc e at
se nte nc ing by

fa iling to pre se nt e ithe r the 1993 re p ort or ne arly a doz e n c ha

ra c te r le tte rs in the attorne y ’ s posse ssion. W he the r a n attorne y provide d ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e of c ounse l at a

nonc a pita l se nte nc ing he aring is de t e rm ine d by a pply ing the t wo-pa rt te st from Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Daire
v . Lattimore , 812 F.3d 766, 767 (9th C ir. 2016) (e n ba nc ) (pe r c uriam ). To pre va il, Le wis m u st show both tha

t his a ttorne y ’ s re pre se ntat ion fe ll be low a n obje c tive sta nda rd of re a sona

ble ne ss a nd tha t the se unprofe ssiona l e rrors c a use d him pre j udic e . Se e Harrington v. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 104 (2011). And to obta in
re lie f unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d), Le wis m ust show tha

t the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt’ s a pplic ation of S

t ric k land “ wa s so la c king in justific ation tha t the re wa s a

nPa ge 3 of 5

e rror we ll unde rstood a

nd c om p re he nde d in e x isting la

w be y ond a

ny possibility

for fa irm inde d disa gre e m e nt.” Id. at 103. Le wis ha s not shown tha

t the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt unre a sona bly
a pplie d Stric k

land in re je c ting his ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e of c ounse l c la im . W e ne e d not de c ide whe the r c ounse l’ s fa ilure to pre se nt the re port a nd the le tte rs fe ll be low the s ta n da rd se t by Stric k

land ’ s pe rform anc e prong be c a u se the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt c ould re a sona

bly have c onc lude d tha

t the fa ilure to pre se nt the re port a nd the le tte rs c a u se d no pre

judic e to Le wis. As to thede nia l of Le wis’ Rome ro m otion, thethre e -strike s la w e sta blishe s a se nte nc ing norm

tha t c an be ove rc om e by

a showing tha

t the de fe nda

nt should be tre ate d a s though heha d not pre viously be e n c onvic t e d of a

viole nt fe lony
. Se e Pe oplev . C

armony , 92 P.3d 369, 376 (C a l. 2004). Le w is’ Rome ro m o tion
re que s te d tha

t the se nte nc ing c ourt strike his prior c onvic tion on the grounds tha t it
wa s m o re tha

n te n y e ars old a

nd diffe re nt in c h ara c te r from his c urre nt offe n se . Ne ithe r the 1993 re port nor thele tte rs from Le wis’ frie nds a nd fam ily m e m be rs bolste re d the se argum e nts. W

hile the re port note s tha

t Le wis ha s poor judgm e nt, lim ite d soc i a liz at i on, a

nd diffic ulty

unde rsta nding the wrongfulne ss of his a c tions, the s e c ha ra c te ristic s c ould c ut e ithe r way on the que s tion whe the r Le wis should be punishe d a s a

re c idivist. And while the le tte rs re fe r to Le w is a s a “ ha rd workingPa ge 4 of 5

m an,” a “ ple a sa nt pe rson,” and som e one who is “re spe c ta ble , re sponsible , a

nd de pe nda ble ,” the y do not provide

c o m pe lling re a s ons to strike

Le wis’ prior
c onvic tion e ithe r. In fa c t, the re is little e v ide nc e tha

t m any of Le wis’ frie nds a

nd fam ily m e m be rs kne w of his prior c onvic tion a nd its violent na

ture . The C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt c ould re a sona bly have c onc l ude d tha

t the 1993 re port a

nd the
c ha ra c te r le tte rs would not ha ve ha d a n im pa c t on these nte nc ing c ourt’ s de c ision to de ny the Rome ro m o tion. Sim ila rly , Le wis c ann ot show tha t c ounse l’ s fa i lure to pre se nt the 1993
re port a nd the le tte rs c a

use d him pre judic e with re spe c t to these nte nc ing c ourt’ s se le c tion of theba se t e rm . Whe n se le c t ing thehigh te rm of four y e ars, the
se nte nc ing c ourt note d the following aggravat ing fa c tors: (1) theprior c onvic tion
wa s a c rim e of viole nc e ; (2) Le wis wa s on proba tion for a dom e stic viole nc e m atte r whe n this c rim e oc c urre d ; a nd (3) the unde rly ing c rim e wa s a c rim e of gre at viole nc e . The se nte nc ing c ourt a lso pla c e d signific ant we ight on te stim ony by the vic t im of the offe nse , who a ske d tha t the m a xim

um se nte nc e be im

p ose d. W e a c knowle dge tha

t the se nt e nc ing c ourt note d a la c k of a ny m itiga ting
c irc um s ta nc e s and tha

t the le tte rs a

nd re port c ould be c o nside re d m itiga ting. Howe ve r, ne ithe r the re port nor thele tte rs a lte r the fa c t tha t c om pe lling
a ggrav at ing c irc um sta

nc e s we re a lso pre se nt. On this re c o rd, the C a l iforniaPa ge 5 of 5

Supre m e C ourt c ould re a sona bly have c onc l ude d tha

t, give n the stre ngth of the
a ggrav at ing fa c tors a

nd the e m pha s is the se nte nc ing c ourt pla c e d on the vic t im ’ s te stim ony , no re a sona

ble proba bility e xists tha t the pre s e ntation of the 1993 re port
and the le tte rs would ha

ve c a use d the se nte n c i ng c o urt to re duc e Le wis’ ba se te rm . AFFIRM E D
.Le w is v . Vasque z , No. 13-56844 IKUTA, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring in thejudgm e nt: I c onc ur in the m a

jority ’ s disposition of Le

wis’ s c la im

tha t his c ounse l’ s fa ilure to disc ove r the 1993 psy c hologic a l re port c onstitute d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. The sta

t e c ourt’ s re

je c tion of this c la im

wa s ne ithe r c ontra

ry to nor a n unre a s ona

ble a p plic ation of Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984), se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1), be c a use c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e did not fa ll be low a n obje c tive sta

nda rd of re a s ona

ble ne ss a nd the re is no re a sona

b le 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, se e Stric k

land, 466 U.S. a

t 687–92. There fore , the distric t c ourt did not e rr in de ny i ng Le wis’ s ha be a s pe tition on this c la im
. I write se pa

rate ly be c a

use we la c k jurisdic tion ove r Le wis’ s se c ond
c la im

— that his c ounse l ’ s fa ilure to submit e le v e n c ha ra c te r le tte rs c onstitute d ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l. “ AEDPA’ s one -y e ar statute of lim i tations in § 2244(d)(1) a

p plie s to e a c h c la im

in a ha be a s a pplic ation on a

n individual ba sis.” Marde sic h v . C ate , 668 F.3d 1164, 1171 (9th C ir. 2012). Otherwise , “ AEDPA’ s sta tute of lim ita

tions ne ve r c o m

ple te ly runs on a ny c la im so long a s the re is a possibility

of a tim e ly c ha lle nge for one c la im .” Id . (e m pha sis omitte d); s e e also May lev . Fe lix , 545 U.S. 644, 662 (2005) (“If c la im s a sse rte d a fte r the one -y e ar pe riod c ould be re vive d sim ply be c a use the y re late to the sa

m e tria l , c onvic t ion, or 

# FIL ED SEP 16 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALSse nte nc e a s a tim e ly file d c la im , AEDPA’ s lim ita tion pe riod would ha

ve slim signific anc e .” ). Le wis’ s c la im that c ounse l wa s ine ffe c tive for fa iling to subm it
c ha ra c te r le tte rs at

se nte nc ing ha s a

diffe re nt “ t

hrust or gra

v am e n ” from

the c la im ba se d on fa ilure to disc ove r the 1993 re p ort. Se e Gime ne z v . Oc hoa , 821 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th C ir. 2016) (a na ly z ing thec ha

ra c te riz ation of ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l “ c la im s” unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2244). B e c a use Le wis kne w or should ha ve known tha

t his c ounse l fa ile d to submi t the c h ara c te r le tte rs at se nte nc ing, theone y e ar statute of lim ita

tions under § 2244(d)(1)(D) ha d long e xpire d by the tim e he file d his se c ond fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition in Nove

m b e r 2012. Ac c ordingly , this
c la im is ba rre d unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2244(d)(1). 1

1 To the e xte nt Le wis a lso a sse rts tha t his c o unse l re nde re d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e by fa iling to a

rgue tha t Le wis wa s m e nta lly

ha ndic a ppe d at se nte nc ing, that c la im wa s a l so disc ove ra

b le at tria l, a

nd the re fore is a lso ba

rre d unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2244(d)(1).