Loftis v. Almager, No. 09-16884 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePetitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus challenging his California conviction of second degree murder. The district court denied the petition but the court raised a certificate of appealability regarding whether there was a sufficient factual basis to support petitioner's no contest plea and whether his plea was knowing and voluntary. Because petitioner did not enter an Alford plea, the state court was under no obligation, under the federal Constitution, to find a factual basis. Petitioner provided no other reason to find his plea unknowing or involuntary. Accordingly, the court held that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging a no contest plea to second degree murder that petitioner alleged was not knowing and voluntary. Judge Adelman wrote that, although Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and its state analogs require that a plea be supported by a factual basis, the state trial court’s failure to find one for Loftis’s plea–unaccompanied by protestations of innocence–did not present a constitutional issue cognizable under § 2254. In this case, petitioner’s plea was not made under Alford or a state analog that would trigger a factual basis requirement. Judge Silverman concurred only in the result. He agreed with Judge Tashima that a factual basis is required for an Alford plea or the no contest plea entered in this case pursuant to People v. West, 477 P.2d 409 (Cal. 1970) (California’s Alford analog). If a trial court fails to establish a factual basis, Judge Silverman would look to a pre-sentence report prepared by the probation department to see whether the error was harmless. Here, the answer is yes because the report contains facts to support the plea. Judge Silverman next would determine whether the facts set forth in the probation report establish a factual basis for the plea under California law, and would conclude that they did in this case. Judge Tashima dissented because Loftis’s West plea was tantamount to a claim of innocence, and the trial court thus violated clearly established federal law when it failed to identify any factual basis for the plea. Judge Tashima would hold that this error had a substantial and injurious effect on the proceedings because nothing in the record suggests that Loftis acted with knowledge that he was endangering human life.
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.