RUDI APELT V. CHARLES RYAN, No. 12-16015 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED APR 23 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUDI ALFRED APELT, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 12-16015 D.C. No. 2:97-cv-01249-ROS v. MEMORANDUM* CHARLES L. RYAN, et al., Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 19 , 2013 San Francisco, California Before: BEA, SCHROEDER and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Rudi Apelt appeals the district court s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2253, and we affirm. It was not unreasonable for the state court to deny Apelt s claim for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ineffective assistance of counsel. Even assuming trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, Apelt has not shown that it is reasonably probable that, but for counsel s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). The state produced overwhelming evidence of Apelt s culpability, as an accomplice, for first-degree murder. In particular, Anke Dorn s testimony established Apelt knew about the plans to kill Cindy Monkman and agreed to them. She likewise established Apelt s presence at the murder scene and his efforts to aid the murder s commission. Finally, Apelt s role in the attempted cover-up strongly implicates his role as an accomplice to Monkman s murder. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.