Ulices Aguilar v. Warren Montgomery, 697 F. App'x 505

Petitioner Ulices Aguilar was convicted of second-degree murder by a California jury and sought federal habeas relief alleging juror bias/misconduct and ineffective assistance of trial counsel tied to two jurors (Juror 3 and Juror 9).
The California Court of Appeal on habeas review held the Juror 3 claim barred under California’s Dixon rule for failure to raise the claim on direct appeal.
The California Supreme Court summarily denied habeas relief on the Juror 9-related ineffective-assistance claim after the Court of Appeal had reserved the issue for habeas in the direct-review proceedings.
The federal district court denied Aguilar’s habeas petition as procedurally barred in part and, alternatively, on the merits.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it held the Juror 3 claim procedurally barred and declined to certify a related ineffective-assistance derivative claim; it granted certificate of appealability for Juror 9 but concluded the California Supreme Court’s adjudication was not an unreasonable application of Strickland and affirmed on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Juror 3 claim is procedurally barred under California law	Aguilar argued juror bias/misconduct claim should be considered on habeas despite not raising it on direct appeal	State argued claim was forfeited under In re Dixon and thus an adequate state ground to bar federal review	Court: Juror 3 claim is procedurally barred under Dixon; no COA for derivative ineffective-assistance claim
Whether trial counsel was ineffective regarding Juror 9 (Strickland)	Aguilar argued counsel’s actions related to Juror 9 deprived him of effective assistance and prejudiced outcome	State argued California Supreme Court’s denial was reasonable under AEDPA and Strickland; no unreasonable factual finding or prejudice shown	Court: Granted COA but affirmed on the merits — state court’s Strickland adjudication was not unreasonable; no prejudice established

Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255 (procedural default doctrine)
Cannedy v. Adams, 706 F.3d 1148 (review under last-reasoned-opinion rule)
In re Dixon, 264 P.2d 513 (Cal. 1953) (California forfeiture rule)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference to state-court merits adjudication)
Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (fact-finding review in habeas)
In re Robbins, 959 P.2d 311 (California procedural rules and adequacy)
In re Seaton, 95 P.3d 896 (California treatment of procedural bars)