T hi s di s p o s i t i o n i s n o t ap p r o p r i a t e f o r p u b l i c a t i o n a n d 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.

** T he H onor a bl e R a ne rC
. C ol l i ns , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.
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
DA NI E L KR I S T OP HE R L AR S ON ,

P e t i t i one r - A ppe l l a nt , v. PA TR I C K G LEBE,

R es po nd ent -A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 35617 D
. C. N o . 2 : 0 9
- c v - 0 1 4 5 3
- TSZ
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 W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on T hom a s S
. Z i l l 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 **

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B e f o r e : BEEZER a nd PA EZ , C i r c ui tJ udge s , a nd CO L L I NS , D i stri ctJudg e. **

D a n ie l L a r s o n b r i n g s th is h a b e a s p e titio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 to 

# FI LED FEB 27 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

c ha l l e nge hi s c onvi c t i ons f orboth f i r s ta nd s e c ond de gr e e m ur de rf orthe de a th of A n a s ta s ia K in g . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 9 1 a n d 2 2 5 3 . W e
r e vi e w the di s tr i c t c our t ’ s de c i s i on t o de ny the pe t i t i on de no vo . L a m b e r t v . B lo d g e tt, 3 9 3 F .3 d 9 4 3 , 9 6 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )
. T he di stri ct court erre d i n c on cl ud i ng that L ar son w as no t “ i n cu sto d y” u nd er hi s c on vi ct i on for s ec on d degre e m urder. A pet i t i on eri s “ i n cust od y” for the pu rposes of S ec t i on 22 54 i f “ he i s subj ec t t o a si gn i fi ca ntre stra i ntup on hi s l i berty ‘ no tshar ed by the publ i c ge ne r a l l y . ’ ” D ow v. C i r c ui tC our tof the F i r s tC i r c ui t , 995 F
. 2d 922, 923 (9th C i r. 19 93 ) ( qu ot i ng Jones v. C un ni ng ham , 37 1 U
. S
. 23 6 , 2 40 (196 3)). H er e, L a r s o n is “in c u s to d y ” o n h is f i r s t c o n v ic tio n b e c a u s e th e p o s s ib ility o f a d o u b le j eo p ard y v i o l at i o n fl o w s fro m it a n d co n st i tu t es a si g n i fi can trestrai n to n h i s l i b erty. T he de f e r e nt i a l s t a nda r d of r e vi e w s e t outi n 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 tof

1996 ( A E D P A ) appl i e s t o thi s c a s e be c a u s e the W a s hi ngt on C our tof A ppe a l s rul e d on the m e r i t s of L a r s on’ s c l a i m s . S e e B a r ke rv. F l e m i ng, 423 F
. 3d 10 85 , 10 92 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). H er e, the W as hi ng t on C ou rtof A pp ea l s c on si dere d L a r s o n ’s d o u b le je o p a r d y b y m u ltip le c o n v ic tio n s c la im a n d d e n ie d r e lie f s u m m a r ily b y r ef er en ce to it s e a rlier d en ial o f h is m u lt ip le p ro se cu ti o n claim . T h e c o u rt’s de c i s i on i s a de c i s i on on the m e r i t s f orA E D P A p urpos e s . S e e E a r l y v. P a c ke r , 537 U
. S
. 3, 8 (20 02 ) ( per c uri am ) ( rul i ng on the m er i t s w ith o u t ci t i ng t o federa l3

p r e c e d e n t) ; H a rr in g to n v . R ic h te r , 1 3 1 S .C t. 7 7 0 , 7 8 4
- 8 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) ( ru lin g o n th e m e r its
w ith o u t d i scu ssi n g cl ai m atal l ). T h erefo re, th e A E D P A st an d ard o f rev i ew ap p l i es. A E D P A p r o v id e s th a t r e lie f c a n b e g r a n te d o n c la im s d e n ie d o n th e m e r its o n ly if th e s ta te c o u r t's ad

ju d ic a tio n w a s ( 1 ) c o n tr a ry to , o r in v o lv e d 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 e s tab lis h e d f

e d e r a l la w , o r( 2 ) b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n ab le d e te r m in a tio n o f

th e f a c ts . 2 8 U .S .C
. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . T h e W a s h in g to n C o u r t o f A p p e a ls
c onc l us i on tha tL a r s on w a i ve d hi s doubl e j e opa r dy r i ght s w a s r e a s ona bl e be c a us e the courtcoul d con cl ud e that the “ no n-com pl i ance ” provi si on i n h i s pl eaagre em entw as the e qui va l e ntof

a w a i ve r . S e e R i c ke tt s v. A da m s on, 483 U
. S
. 1 ( 1987) ; W a i nw r i ght
v. W i tt , 46 9 U
. S
. 41 2, 42 6 (19 85 ). In addi t i on , there i s no cl ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l
rul e tha ta tr i a l c our tc onf r ont e d w i th a r e i ns t a t e m e n t o f cha r ge s a f t e rw a i ve rof
m u ltip le p r o s e c u tio n s m u s t v a c a te th e e a r lie rp le a . A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff

i rm the deni al of habeas re l i ef
. AF F I RME D.