Kem Cote v. Darryl Adams

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Kem Cote appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition, challenging his California convictions for child sexual abuse. He makes two principal arguments in this appeal.

The first is that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that a mid-trial amendment of the information violated his due process right to notice of the charges and the penalty he faced. While he argues that the state court’s determination is not entitled to deference under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), the reasoned opinion of the state trial court, affirmed by the California Supreme Court, is entitled to deference. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 , 131 S.Ct. 770, 784-85 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). The state ineffective assistance of counsel claim did not materially differ from the federal claim, and the state court’s reasoned disposition rejected the state claim. See Johnson v. Williams, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1088, 1094-99 , 185 L.Ed.2d 105 (2013) (applying deference to a federal claim not expressly mentioned in the state court decision, where state and federal claims were not “quite different”). Cote…