Court Opinion

ID: 3000092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-24 20:01:03.200045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:53.449750
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             SEP 24 2015

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL OQUITA GUTIERREZ,                         No. 13-16849

              Petitioner - Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:12-cv-00712-DTF

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
RICHARD A. BOCK; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
ARIZONA; CHARLES L. RYAN,

              Respondents - Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                  D. Thomas Ferraro, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 16, 2015**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: CHRISTEN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and LEMELLE,*** Senior
District Judge.

        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
        **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
        ***
             The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
        After a shooting at a crowded party, an Arizona jury convicted Daniel

Gutierrez on several counts of assault and one count of manslaughter. Gutierrez

filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in state court alleging ineffective

assistance of counsel. After that petition’s denial and several unsuccessful appeals,

Gutierrez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court. The

district court dismissed the petition and Gutierrez appeals. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.1

        Gutierrez argues his counsel’s decision not to call Jose Baldenegro as a

witness amounted to ineffective assistance. Gutierrez is not entitled to relief

because the state court reasonably concluded that, even if counsel’s performance

was deficient, Gutierrez had not “show[n] that the deficient performance

prejudiced the defense.” See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984);

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Gutierrez’s DNA was on the gun used in the shooting and

Baldenegro’s account would have been contradicted by that of two other witnesses.

        AFFIRMED

        1
              The parties are familiar with the facts, so we will not recount them
here.