Terry Bemore v. Kevin Chappell

MEMORANDUM

Terry Bemore appeals denial of habeas relief from his first degree murder conviction and death sentence. In an opinion filed concurrently with this memorandum, we address Bemore’s claims of ineffective assistance by his trial counsel. We resolve the remainder of his claims here.

Í. The California Supreme Court reasonably applied Supreme Court law, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), in concluding that the state did not violate Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), or Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 , 79 S.Ct. 1173 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), in connection with the testimony of Latonya Wadley, Kim Strickler, Troy Patterson, Glen Heflin, and Echo Ramey. Bemore has not shown “a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 433 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (opinion of Blackmun, J.)); see also Morris v. Ylst, 447 F.3d 735, 745 (9th Cir.2006) (“The test for prejudice for a [Napue ] claim is the same as that for materiality in a…