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 AR IB EL A. GOM EZ,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. JANE PAR

NELL, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 15-35359 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00222-R M P M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington R osa nna M a louf Pe te rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 7, 2016 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c K EOW

N, TALLM AN, a

nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. M aribe l Gom e z , a

W a shington sta

te prisone r, a

ppe a ls the de nia l of he r 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha

be a s c orpus pe tition c ha lle nging he r Gra nt C ounty Supe rior C ourt c onvic tion by

be nc h tria l for hom ic ide by a buse of he r twe nty -five -m onth old son,



# FIL ED D EC 13 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).R a fa e l. Gom e z c la i m s tha t he r tria l c ounse l, R obe rt M ose r, provide d ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e by fa iling to produc e a de quate e xpe rt te stim ony re ga rding he r de fe nse . W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253, a

nd we a ffirm
. The W a s hington Supre m e C ourt re a sona bly de te rm ine d tha

t M ose r’ s pre p aration of thee xpe rt witne ss, Dr. Ophove n, did not a m ount to ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e of c ounse l. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1); Stric k land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). W h i le M ose r m ay

have provide d Dr. Ophove n with
som e of the ne c e ssa

ry m a te ria l s inc onve nie n tly c lose to he r sc he d

ule d te stim ony , Dr. Ophove n wa s none the le ss a ble to fully

re vie w the m , write a

c o m ple te re port, and provide a de q

uate te stim ony

in support of the

de fe nse at tria l . The re is no
e vide nc e tha

t Dr. Ophove n ’ s opinion a s to the c a use of de ath— a spira

tion pne um onia

— would ha ve c ha nge d ha d she re c e i ve d the inform ation e arlie r. Gom e z the re fore c annot show tha t M ose r’ s pre pa

ra tion of Dr. Ophoven pre judic e d he r a t tria l. Se eStric k

land, 466 U.S. a

t 687. Furthe r, a ny “ c onc e ssion” by

M ose r a s to a

history of a b use did not pre j udic e Gom e z ’ s tria l
. Not only wa s the re am

ple e vide nc e in the re c ord to support suc h a finding, but a buse is a lso not a

n e le m e nt of the c rim e of hom ic ide by a b use . Se e WA S H . RE V . C O D E § 9A.32.055(1). R athe r, hom ic ide by

a buse
re quire s a patte rn of a ssa

ult or torture
. Id. As suc h, Dr. Ophove n’ s te stim ony did
2not a c tua l ly

c onc e de any

e le m e nt of the c rim e , a

nd the tria l judge re c o gniz e d a nd
c are fully artic ulate d the distinc t ion be twe e n a buse and a ssa

ult or torturein his writte n ve rdic t. Thus, Gom e z ha s not shown tha t the outc om e of he r tria l would have be e n diffe re nt. Stric k

land, 466 U.S. a

t 694. The W a s hington Supre m e C ourt a l so prope rly de te rm ine d

tha t M ose r wa s not ine ffe c tive by

fa iling to c onsult a dditiona l e xpe rts re ga rding the a lle ge d patte rn of a ssa ults a n d the e vide nc e of viole nt sha king. Although Gom

e z c la im e d

tha t va rious e xpe rts c ould ha

v e te stifie d

at tria l re ga rding a l te rnat ive c a

use s of de ath, the t e stim onie s she offe re d we re lim ite d

to one or two injurie s susta ine d by R a fa e l
and did not a

tte m pt to e xpla in R a fa e l ’ s long history of a buse . M ore ove r, the e xpe rt te stim onie s e nvisione d by Gom e z did not spe ak to the tria l judge ’ s c onc lusion on the c a use of de ath. B e c a

use those te stim onie s atte m pte d to unde rm ine the sta te ’ s e vide nc e on viole nt sha

king— but did not dire c tly re but the ultim at e fa c t ua l finding that R a fa e l die d of blunt forc e tra um a
— the re is no indic ation tha

t the tria l judge would ha ve re a c h e d a

diffe re nt ve rdic t. Gom e z a ga i n fa ils to show she suffe re d
any pre judic e at tria l. Id. Our re vie w of the W a shington Supre m e C o urt’ s re solution of the Stric k land
c la im is “ doubly

de fe re ntia l ” unde r the AEDPA, C ulle n v . Pinholste r , 563 U.S. 170, 190 (2011) (quoting K now le s v . Mirzay anc e , 556 U.S. 111, 121 n.2, 123
3(2009)), a

nd on this re c ord we c annot sa y tha t the sta te c ourt’ s judgm e nt “ re sulte d in a de c ision tha

t wa s c ontra

ry to, or involve d a

n unre a sona

b le a pplic ation of,
c le arly e sta blishe d Fe de ra l la

w,” 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). Thede c ision of the distric t c o urt is AFFIRM E D.

4