Rudi Alfred Apelt v. Charles L. Ryan

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUDI ALFRED APELT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN, et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 12-16015
D.C. No. 2:97-cv-01249-ROS
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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 of 2 --