Milan Pakes v. P.D. Brazelton

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MILAN PAUL PAKES, No. 13-16706
Petitioner, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05284 CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
P.D. BRAZELTON,
Respondent.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Bryer, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 11, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, District Judge.**
Milan Paul Pakes, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s
denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) 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 Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Trial counsel’s stipulation that Pakes “intended to flee from the traffic
accident because he reasonably believed he would be sent back to prison if
apprehended” was not more prejudicial than the alternative evidence that Pakes
was on parole. Such evidence was relevant to his intent to flee and admissible
under California law. See, e.g., People v. Scheer, 68 Cal. App. 4th 1009, 1020 n.2
(Cal. Ct. App. 1998); People v. Johnson, 15 Cal. App. 4th 169, 176 (Cal. Ct. App.
1993). The stipulation was a sound strategic decision that did not prejudice Pakes.
The state court’s rejection of his ineffective assistance claim was therefore not
contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Pakes further argues that he was denied a fair trial due to cumulative
prejudice resulting from several other errors made by his trial attorney and by the
prosecutor. Since we cannot identify any individual error, no cumulative prejudice
is possible. See Hayers v. Ayers, 632 F.3d 500, 504 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
2