United States v. 2020-03-17 | 18-55344 | DANIEL FLORES V. R. BARNES | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL FLORES,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 18-55344

D.C. No.
2:13-cv-03934-JLS-AFM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 6, 2020
**

Pasadena, California

Before: HURWITZ and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,
***
District
Judge.

While Daniel Flores was in jail after being arrested on drug charges, both he
and Jose Velasquez were surreptitiously recorded during conversations with a paid

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

***
The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED

MAR 17 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
confidential informant (“CI”). The CI introduced himself as a member of the
Mexican Mafia, and stated that he had heard that attacks committed by Flores and
Velasquez were drive-by shootings in violation of the Mafia’s code of conduct. The
CI stated that he was tasked with getting to the bottom of these rumors, and that their
names would be cleared if they confirmed the attacks were not drive-by shootings.
In response, Flores and Velasquez confessed to the crimes, but explained that they
were not drive-by shootings.
Flores and Velasquez were tried separately in California state court. Both
statements were admitted at Flores’ trial and he was convicted of murder and
attempted murder. After unsuccessfully pursuing direct appeals and state habeas
relief, Flores filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, which the district court
denied. We have jurisdiction of Flores’ appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
1. Flores argues that his confession was coerced because the CI told him that
his name was dirtied by rumors that he had committed drive-by-shootings, and that
he could avoid any adverse consequences if he dispelled those rumors. The
California Court of Appeal found that the CI did not threaten Flores, and that Flores
did not confess out of fear. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court
of Appeal’s conclusion that Flores voluntarily confessed was not contrary to, or an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See Williams v. Taylor,
529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000).

3
2. Flores argues that Velasquez’s testimony was also coerced and improperly
admitted at Flores’ trial. Flores raised this argument on direct appeal to the California
Court of Appeal but not in his petition for review to the California Supreme Court.
Accordingly, when Flores subsequently raised this claim in a state habeas petition,
the California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition, citing In re Waltreus,
397 P.2d 1001, 1005 (Cal. 1965), and In re Dixon, 264 P.2d 513, 514 (Cal. 1953).
Given the Waltreus citation, this claim is procedurally barred from habeas review,
and the record reveals no cause for the procedural default and no prejudice. See
Forrest v. Vasquez, 75 F.3d 562, 563–64 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Coleman v.
Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 732, 750 (1991).
3. The district court correctly rejected Flores’ argument that the Sixth
Amendment was violated under the rule in Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201,
203–04, 207 (1964), when he was questioned by the CI without the assistance of
counsel. This claim fails because the CI questioned Flores regarding uncharged
conduct, unrelated to the charge for which he was being detained, and therefore his
right to counsel had not attached. See Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 167–68 (2001).
AFFIRMED.