Court Opinion

ID: 9404894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 18:01:44.669978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:17.520278
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 26 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD GILLION,                                 No.    21-55030

                Petitioner-Appellant,           D.C. No.
                                                2:18-cv-03004-SB-LAL
 v.

DEBBIE ASUNCION, Warden,                        MEMORANDUM*

                Respondent-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                 Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                        Argued and Submitted June 8, 2023
                              Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,** District Judge.

      Ronald Gillion appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for attempted first degree

murder. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
      We review de novo a district court’s denial of habeas relief. Varghese v.

Uribe, 736 F.3d 817, 822 (9th Cir. 2013). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), which governs this petition, we may grant a claim

adjudicated on the merits only if the state court’s decision was (1) “contrary to, or

involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as

determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “based on an

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the

State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

      Gillion challenges the state court’s denial of his petition alleging ineffective

assistance of counsel for his attorney’s failure to investigate and call Latisha

Adkins, a potentially exculpatory witness, to testify at trial. To prevail, he must

show (1) deficient performance and (2) prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Prejudice requires “a reasonable probability that, but for

counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been

different.” Id. at 694. “The likelihood of a different result must be substantial, not

just conceivable.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 (2011). “The standards

created by Strickland and [AEDPA] are both highly deferential, and when the two

apply in tandem, review is doubly so.” Id. at 105 (cleaned up).

      The state court reasonably found that, even assuming that trial counsel

rendered deficient performance, Gillion failed to show prejudice. When evaluating

                                           2
prejudice, “we must compare the evidence that actually was presented to the jury

with that which could have been presented had counsel acted appropriately.”

Cannedy v. Adams, 706 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted), as

amended on denial of reh’g, 733 F.3d 794. Although Adkins would have

supported Gillion’s sole defense testimony at trial, it was reasonable for the state

court to find no substantial likelihood of a different result given the myriad issues

with Adkins’s credibility, the victim’s repeated and corroborated identifications of

Gillion as the shooter, and evidence of witness intimidation. See Staten v. Davis,

962 F.3d 487, 497-98 (9th Cir. 2020) (finding reasonable the state court’s

determination of no prejudice because, despite trial counsel’s failure to present

exonerating witnesses, the omitted testimony was “no more reliable” than the

evidence presented, and the prosecution provided “compelling evidence” of the

petitioner’s guilt).

       Accordingly, we cannot say that the state court’s conclusion “was so lacking

in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in

existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Richter, 562

U.S. at 103.

       AFFIRMED.

                                          3