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. 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 B R AN DO N S UT T ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. DO UG WADD I NG T ON , R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 35822 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 -cv -0 1 4 6 2 -M JP 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 M a r s haJ . P e c hm a n, 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 J une 9, 2010 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: C A N B Y , C A L L A H A N an d IK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W a s hi ngt on pr i s one rB r a ndon S utt on appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on f

oraw r i tof

habe a s c orpus unde r28 U . S . C . § 2254. W e ha ve 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 d2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f irm . 

# FI LED

JU N 16 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f S u tto n ’s h ab e a s p e titio n . Se e , e . g. , D ow s v . W

ood , 211 F . 3d 480, 484 ( 9th C i r . 2000) . T he 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 ” ) appl i e s t o thi s c a s e , s o w e m a y gr a nt r e l i e f onl y i f “ the s t a t e c ourta dj udi c a t i on of the m e r i t s of

ac l a i m ‘ ( 1) r e s ul t e d i n a d e c is io n th a t w a s c o n tr a ry to , o rin v o lv e d an u n r e a s o n ab le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r ly est ab l i sh ed F ed eral l aw , as d et erm i n ed b y th e S u p rem e C o u rto f th e U n i t ed S t at es; or( 2) r e s ul t e d i n ade c i s i on tha tw a s ba s e d on a n unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the fa ct s i n l i gh tof the evi dence pres ent ed i n the S t at e c ou rtproceedi ng . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ) . W e r e j e c tS utt on’ s a r gum e nttha tthe i nf orm a t i on c ha r gi ng hi m w i th f e l ony m ur de rw a s c ons t i tut i ona l l y i ns uf f i c i e ntbe c aus e i tdi d notc ont a i n the e l e m e nt s of the three predi ca t e f

el on i es . A s S utt on ac kn ow l edges, no S up re m e C ou rtca se has a ddr e s s e d w he the raf

e l ony m ur de rc ha r gi ng doc um e ntm us ts t a t e the e l e m e nt s of the pr e di c a t e f

e l ony , s o the s t a t e c our t ’ s de c i s i on c oul d notha ve be e n “ c ontr a ry t o” c l e a r l y e s t ab l i s h e d f

e d e r a l l a w a s d e t e rm i n e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t . No ra r e we pe r s ua de d tha tthe s t a t e c ourt ’ s de c i s i on w a s an unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of a ny of th e S u p r e m e C o u rt c a s e s u p o n w h ic h S u tto n r e lie s . Se e , e . g. , App re nd iv. N ew Je rs ey , 53 0 U . S . 46 6 (20 00 ); H am l i ngv. U

ni ted Stat es , 41 8 U . S . 87 (197 4); C ol e v . A rkans as , 333 U . S . 196 ( 1948) . S utt on’ s r e l i a nc e on ourde c i s i on i n Kre ck v.3

Spaldi ng , 721 F . 2d 1229 ( 9th C i r . 1983) , a l s o i s una va i l i ng. W e c a nnotove r turn a s t a t e c o n v i c t i o n o n h ab e a s r e v i e w o n th e b a s i s o f ac o n f l i c twi th Ni n th C i r c u i tl a w, s e e , e . g. , B r a dw a

y v . C a te , 588 F . 3d 990, 992 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , a nd Kre ck ha s no p er su as iv e v alu e b ec au se itw as d ec id ed b ef o re th e e n ac tm en t o f A E D P A ’s d e f e r e n tia l s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w a n d its h o ld in g w a s n o t r e q u ir e d b y a n y c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d S u p r e m e C o u rt p r e c e d e n t. W e a l s o r e

j e c tS utt on’ s c l a i m tha the w a s de ni e d af a i rtr i a l a s ar e s ul tof p ro se cu to rial m isco n d u ct d u rin g clo sin g ar g u m en t. E v en if th e p ro se cu to r’s re m arks w er e i m prop er , they di d n otre nd erS utt on ’ s tri al so un fa i r thathe w as de ni e d due pr oc e s s unde rthe s t a nda r ds s e tf or th i n D arde n v . W

ai nw r i ght , 477 U . S . 168, 178- 83 ( 1986) , and D o n n el l y v. D eCh risto

f o ro , 416 U . S . 637, 643- 45 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . T h e s ta te c o u rt’s d e c is io n w a s n o t c o n tr a ry to o ra n u n r e a s o n ab le appl i ca t i on of ei ther D arden or D o n n e lly . T h e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f S u tt o n ’ s h ab eas p et i t i o n i s AF F I RME D.