JAMES WILLIAMS V. ROBERT HERZOG, No. 15-35681 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 13 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, No. 15-35681 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01470-JCC v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT HERZOG, Superintendent Monroe Correctional Complex, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 30, 2016 Seattle, Washington Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. James Williams, a Washington state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition seeking to overturn his conviction of Murder in the First Degree. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. His claim is that the trial court, at the time he entered his guilty plea, should have ordered a hearing on his competency. This is referred to as a procedural competency claim. In the state courts, however, he argued a different claim, i.e., that he was incompetent to enter the plea, a claim referred to as a substantive competency claim. See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396, 398 (1993). The State contends the procedural claim is unexhausted and the petition properly denied on that ground. We agree. Even assuming Williams’s procedural claim can be regarded as having been exhausted because it was somehow intertwined with the substantive claim, see Lounsbury v. Thompson, 374 F.3d 785, 788 (9th Cir. 2004), it lacks merit. There had been previous determinations of Williams’s competency. In accepting the plea, the trial court also accepted Williams’s counsel’s representation that although the plea was entered against the advice of counsel, Williams was competent to make it. There was no basis for a reasonable judge to question competency at that time. See Davis v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 628, 644 (9th Cir. 2004). We decline to issue any further certificate of appealability. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
