Nunez v. Gamboa, 23-2562

Isaias Lopez Nunez was convicted in California of twelve counts of child rape and three counts of committing a lewd act on a child, for which he received fifteen consecutive terms of fifteen years to life imprisonment.
Nunez filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his prison sentence, specifically on ex post facto grounds related to the sentencing for the lewd act counts.
The California state court found that Nunez forfeited his ex post facto claim by failing to object or request probation at sentencing, applying the contemporaneous objection rule.
The federal district court denied his habeas petition, and Nunez appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Nunez argued that his procedural default should be excused due to ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ex post facto claim procedurally defaulted?	Ex post facto claims can't be forfeited under CA law.	State court's forfeiture ruling is independent and adequate state law ground.	Claim is procedurally defaulted; must defer to state court's application of state law.
Excuse for default: Ineffective assistance?	Counsel was ineffective for not objecting/requesting probation.	No prejudice; outcome would've been the same even if counsel objected.	No Strickland prejudice; so no cause to excuse procedural default.

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (federal courts cannot review claims denied on independent and adequate state law grounds)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (sets standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims)
Garza v. Idaho, 586 U.S. 232 (2019) (reinforces Strickland prejudice requirement)
Peltier v. Wright, 15 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 1994) (federal courts must accept state court interpretations of state law)
Zapata v. Vasquez, 788 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2015) (California's contemporaneous objection rule is an adequate state ground)