CARLOS RAMIREZ V. JAMES YATES, No. 12-17032 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 09 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS CARLOS BARAJAS RAMIREZ, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 12-17032 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01417-MCETJB 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.
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.
