NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 09 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
CARLOS BARAJAS RAMIREZ, No. 12-17032
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01417-MCE-
TJB
v.
JAMES A. YATES, Warden, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 5, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
A California state jury convicted Carlos Ramirez (“Ramirez”) for spousal
rape, sodomy by force, and corporal injury on R.S., his spouse. Ramirez now
appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
*
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).
28 U.S.C. § 2254. He claims his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance under
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Ramirez argues that his trial counsel acted unreasonably by failing to
impeach R.S. with certain witnesses or evidence regarding her past alleged crimes,
her bias and motive to lie, other acts reflecting her dishonesty and manipulation,
her purportedly prior inconsistent statements discussing the incident, and certain
explicit photos she sent Ramirez shortly after the incident.
The state courts did not unreasonably apply Strickland in rejecting Ramirez's
claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Even assuming that Ramirez’s trial counsel
acted unreasonably based on these omissions, the trial court reasonably found that
Ramirez was not prejudiced by the omissions alleged in the claims presented to it,
and the state appellate court could have similarly found no prejudice, individually
or cumulatively, given the evidence of R.S.’s injuries, the DNA evidence
implicating Ramirez, the testimony of a sexual assault nurse stating that R.S.’s
injuries were consistent with forcible rape and sodomy, and Ramirez’s inconsistent
statement to the police regarding the incident.
AFFIRMED.