Ortega-Gonzalez v. Hall
Filing
31
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION - The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be DENIED, and a judgment of DISMISSAL should be entered. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are due by 11/24/2009. If objections are filed, an party may file a response to those objections within 10 days of the filing date of the objections. Signed on 11/12/09 by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)
<![CDATA[
FlLED
NOVJ22rm
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON IVAN ORTEGA-GONZALEZ, Civil No. 08-368-AC Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMIvlENDATION v. GUY HALL, Respondent. ALISON M. CLARK Assistant Federal Public Defender 101 S W Main Street Suite 1700 Portland, OR 97204 Attorney for Petitioner JOHN R KROGER Attorney General KRISTEN E. BOYD Assistant Attorney General Department o f Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301 Attorneys for Respondent 1 - FINDINGS AND RECOJMMENDATION -
ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge. Petitioner, a n i n m a t e a t the T w o R i v e r s C o r r e c t i o n a l Institution, brings this h a b e a s corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. F o r the reasons t h a t follow, the Petition for W r i t o f Habeas Corpus should be DENIED.
BACKGROUND
O n May 20, 2003, a M u l t n o m a h County grand j u r y indicted Petitioner, along w i t h a codefendant, o n five counts o f Robbery in the First Degree w i t h a firearm, one c o u n t o f Robbery i n t h e F i r s t D e g r e e , n i n e c o u n t s o f R o b b e r y i n t h e S e c o n d D e g r e e w i t h a F i r e a r m , a n d five c o u n t s o f K i d n a p i n g i n t h e S e c o n d D e g r e e w i t h a F i r e a r m . C h a r g e s w e r e also p e n d i n g a g a i n s t P e t i t i o n e r a n d h i s c o - d e f e n d a n t i n C l a c k a m a s C o u n t y for a n a d d i t i o n a l Robbery. F o l l o w i n g e x t e n s i v e s e t t l e m e n t n e g o t i a t i o n s , P e t i t i o n e r e n t e r e d a p l e a agreement. W i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f a n interpreter, P e t i t i o n e r r e v i e w e d t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t at l e n g t h w i t h h i s attorney a n d w i t h t h e t r i a l court. P e t i t i o n e r ' s a t t o r n e y a l s o i n v o l v e d t h e M e x i c a n C o n s u l a t e t o a s s i s t P e t i t i o n e r i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d a p p r e c i a t i n g t h e risks h e w a s facing, a n d t o e v a l u a t e s e t t l e m e n t o t t e r s . U n d e r the t e r m s o f t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t , P e t i t i o n e r a g r e e d t o p l e a d guilty t o five c o u n t s o f R o b b e r y i n t h e F i r s t D e g r e e w i t h a F i r e a r m a n d five c o u n t s o f K i d n a p i n g i n t h e S e c o n d D e g r e e w i t h a F i r e a r m : P e t i t i o n e r a l s o a g r e e d t o p l e a d g u i l t y to o n e c o u n t o f R o b b e r y i n t h e F i r s t D e g r e e i n C l a c k a m a s C o u n t y . I n e x c h a n g e , the s t a t e a g r e e d t o d i s m i s s t h e r e m a i n i n g c h a r g e s a n d s t i p u l a t e t o a total sentence o f 110 months o f imprisonment. 1
IThe maximum possible sentence Petitioner faced o n all o f the charges w a s 170 years o f imprisonment.
2 - FINDINGS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N -
The stipulated sentenced was conditioned upon P e t i t i o n e r ' s obligation to testify truthfully i n t h e proceedings a g a i n s t h i s co-defendant. T h e p l e a agreement p r o v i d e d t h a t i f P e t i t i o n e r failed to do so, the result would be open sentencing w i t h each side free to argue for or againSt consecutive sentences for any and all counts. P e t i t i o n e r u l t i m a t e l y r e f u s e d to t e s t i f y a g a i n s t h i s c o - d e f e n d a n t . A t s e n t e n c i n g , P e t i t i o n e r p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c o - d e f e n d a n t h a d t h r e a t e n e d P e t i t i o n e r a n d h i s family, t h a t t h e c o defendant made threatening remarks and m e n a c e d Petitioner w h e n Petitioner was called to testify, a n d t h a t t h e c o - d e f e n d a n t p h y s i c a l l y a t t a c k e d t h e p r o s e c u t o r a t h i s o w n sentencing. A l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e r e l a t e d to e v e n t s t h a t o c c u r r e d a f t e r t h e c h a n g e o f p l e a h e a r i n g ; t h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e t h a t P e t i t i o n e r ' s t r i a l c o u n s e l w a s a w a r e o f t h e t h r e a t s p r i o r t o e n t r y o f t h e p l e a agreement. T h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d P e t i t i o n e r b r e a c h e d t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t a n d p r o c e e d e d to o p e n sentencing. A f t e r h e a r i n g t e s t i m o n y a n d argument, t h e trial c o u r t s e n t e n c e d P e t i t i o n e r t o t h e s t a t e ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f 180 m o n t h s o f i m p r i s o n m e n t . P e t i t i o n e r d i r e c t l y appealed. The O r e g o n C o u r t o f A p p e a l s a f f i r m e d w i t h o u t o p i n i o n , a n d the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. State v. Ortega-Gonzalez, 195 Or. App. 546, 99 P . 3 d
1239, rev. denied, 337 Or. 657, 103 P . 3 d 640 (2004).
Petitioner t h e n sought state p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f ( " P C R " ) . Following a n evidentiary hearing, the state p e R trial j u d g e denied relief. On appeal, the Oregon Court o f Appeals affirmed without opinion a n d the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. Ortega-Gonzalez v. Hall, 215 Or. App. 112, 168 P . 3 d 338, rev. denied, 343 Or. 555, 173 P.3d 832 (2007).
3 - FINDINGS AND R E C O M M E N D An O N -
On March 21, 2008, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ o f Habeas Corpus i n this Court. P e t i t i o n e r a l l e g e s o n e g r o u n d f o r relief: 2 G r o u n d O n e : · T r i a l C o u n s e l failed t o p r o v i d e legal a d v i c e a n d s e r v i c e s u n d e r t h e S i x t h and F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s o f t h e U n i t e d States Constitution. S u p p o r t i n g F a c t s : Trial counsel failed to ensure p e t i t i o n e r ' s decision to waive his rights t o a j u r y trial a n d e n t e r a g u i l t y p l e a w a s knowingly, v o l u n t a r i l y , a n d intelligently made. Respondent argues Petitioner procedurally defaulted this claim by failing to fairly present i t in his petition for review to the Oregon Supreme Court. Respondent further argues that, in any event, the state P C R c o u r t ' s decision denying r e l i e f o n this claim is entitled to deference. DISCUSSION I. Procedural Default A. Legal Standards
G e n e r a l l y , a s t a t e p r i s o n e r m u s t e x h a u s t all a v a i l a b l e s t a t e c o u r t r e m e d i e s e i t h e r o n d i r e c t a p p e a l o r t h r o u g h c o l l a t e r a l p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e a federal c o u r t m a y g r a n t h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f . 2 8 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). A state prisoner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by fairly presenting his claims to the appropriate state courts at all appellate stages offered under state law. Baldwin v.
Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004); Caseyv. Moore, 386 F.3d 896, 915~16 ( 9 t h C i r . 2004), cert. denied,
545 U.S. 1146 (2005). A petitioner must seek discretionary review in the s t a t e ' s highest court in order to fully exhaust his state remedies. 0 'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). A " f a i r presentation" requires that a petitioner describe the operative facts a n d the federal legal theory o n which he bases his claim i n a procedural context in which the claims may be considered. DaviS v.
2petitioner included a second claim. for r e l i e f i n his Petition, which h e subsequently withdrew. 4 - FINDINGS AND R E C O M M E N D An O N -
Silva, 511 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th Cir. 2008); accord Castille v. Peoples, 4 8 9 U.S. 346, 351 (1989); Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F . 3 d 1153, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2003).
W h e n a s t a t e p r i s o n e r fails t o e x h a u s t h i s f e d e r a l c l a i m s i n s t a t e c o u r t , a n d t h e s t a t e c o u r t w o u l d n o w f i n d t h e c l a i m s b a r r e d u n d e r a p p l i c a b l e s t a t e r u l e s , t h e f e d e r a l c l a i m s are p r o c e d u r a l l y defaulted. Casey, 386 F . 3 d a t 920; Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 735 n J (1991). Habeas r e v i e w o f p r o c e d u r a l l y d e f a u l t e d c l a i m s is b a r r e d u n l e s s t h e p e t i t i o n e r d e m o n s t r a t e s c a u s e f o r t h e p r o c e d u r a l d e f a u l t a n d a c t u a l p r e j u d i c e , o r t h a t t h e failure t o c o n s i d e r t h e c l a i m s w i l l r e s u l t i n a fundamental miscarriage o f justice. Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750.
B.'
Analysis
I n his A m e n d e d P e t i t i o n for P o s t - C o n v i c t i o n Relief, P e t i t i o n e r a l l e g e d o n e claim:
T o t h e b e s t o fP e t i t i o n e r ' s k n o w l e d g e a n d b e l i e f h e w a s d e n i e d a d e q u a t e a n d effective assistance o f counsel u n d e r t h e S i x t h a n d F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t s t o t h e Constitution o fthe United States and u n d e r Article I, Section 11, o ft h e Constitution o f Oregon. T r i a l c o u n s e l failed to p r o v i d e l e g a l a d v i c e a n d s e r v i c e s w h i c h m e t t h e minimwn standards required o f a criminal defense attorney. The failure to give adequate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n includes, b u t i s n o t l i m i t e d to, t h e following specific allegations i n t h a t the defense attorney did not: (A) E n s u r e t h a t P e t i t i o n e r ' s d e c i s i o n t o w a i v e h i s r i g h t s to a j u r y t r i a l a n d e n t e r a guilty p l e a was knowing, voluntary, a n d intelligently made; and Petitioner intended to accept a stipulated sentence o f 110 months. P e t i t i o n e r f e l t p r e s s u r e d to a c c e p t a n o p e n s e n t e n c i n g p l e a a g r e e m e n t t o avoid testifying a g a i n s t h i s co-defendant, N o e l Reyes-Mauro, a n d t h e p o s s i b l e h a r m f u l c o n s e q u e n c e s t h a t m i g h t r e s u l t from h i s testimony. R e s p o n d e n t ' s E x h i b i t (hereafter "Resp. E x h . " ) 110, p. 2. A t the P C R trial, his attorney argued the basis for t h e claim:
5 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N -
COUNSEL: . . . [petitioner] thought his plea was involuntary based on what he perceived were threats from the co-defendant, Mr. Reyes Mauro, i f h e decided to cooperate with the State and offer testimony against him at his trial. He doesn't comply with the cooperation agreement, he loses out on a 110month plea offer that was contingent on his testimony against the co-defendant, so it ends up in open sentencing where he gets a consecutive sentence to two counts o f Robbery in the First Degree under Measure 11. So, in effect, he received 70 more months t h a n he would have had he cooperated with the State as part o f his negotiated plea. And I'll just rest on his deposition testimony and the exhibits that are in evidence.
THE COURT: Counsel, how does his alleged fear o f Mr. Reyes translate into inadequacy o f counsel?
COUNSEL: Well, I guess I can only say that he needs to insure that decision he makes is whether to waive his right to trial or plead guilty shouldn't be coerced in any fashion. And I guess there's no evidence that any steps were made to insure that [petitioner] has come to no harm from Mr. Reyes Mauro.
I think I would agree i t ' s an additional burden to place on counseL
Resp. Exh. 118, pp. 9-10. On appeal, Petitioner's Assignment o f Error stated: "[t]he post-conviction court erred in denying petitioner relief when the evidence was uncontradicted that petitioner felt pressured by his trial attorney." Resp. Exh. 120, p. 2. His "Summary o f Argument" stated, inter alia:
I n this case, the plea was not voluntary as petitioner felt coerced because his trial
attorney failed to take reasonable Steps to insure his safety from the co-defendant he was required to testify against.
Id. He elaborated on this argument:
I n this case petitioner entered into a plea agreement which, though including a generally favorable 11 O-month recommendation by the state, was contingent on him
testifying against his co-defendant. Failure to so testify would result in open sentencing. Petitioner was terrified o f being retaliated against by his co-defendant. The post-conviction court found this fear to be' reasonable and well-founded.
6 - FINDlNGS AND RECOMMENDATION -
Nevertheless, counsel t o o k n o steps t o insure t h a t p e t i t i o n e r w a s k e p t safe f r o m h i s co-defendant. A s a result, w h e n p e t i t i o n e r w a s c a l l e d t o t e s t i f y a g a i n s t h i s c o d e f e n d a n t , h e p a n i c k e d a n d d i d n o t c o o p e r a t e w i t h t h e state. B e c a u s e o f t h i s b r e a c h o f t h e p l e a agreement. t h e state sought a n d o b t a i n e d a 180-month sentence from t h e t r i a l court. T r i a l c o u n s e l h e l d o u t t h e h o p e o f o b t a i n i n g a lID-month s e n t e n c e without taking t h e p r o p e r steps t o ensure t h a t there w a s a reasonable possibility t h a t p e t i t i o n e r w o u l d b e a b l e t o fulfill t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h a t sentence. I n short, t r i a l counsel failed to do anything t o ensure t h a t the l I D - m o n t h sentence w a s anything b u t a mirage. The failure t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e r e w a s a p o s s i b i l i t y o f fulfilling t h e a g r e e m e n t rendered t h e p l e a i n v o l u n t a r y as i t w a s p r e d i c a t e d o n a c o n d i t i o n p e t i t i o n e r w o u l d b e u n a b l e t o fulfill.
[d. a t p. 5 (citations t o t h e record omitted). I n h i s P e t i t i o n for R e v i e w t o the O r e g o n S u p r e m e Court, Petitioner s t a t e d t h e " Q u e s t i o n
P r e s e n t e d " a s " W a s t r i a l c o u n s e l i n a d e q u a t e a n d i n e f f e c t i v e for a d v i s i n g P e t i t i o n e r t o e n t e r a p l e a a g r e e m e n t t h a t there w a s n o realistic p o s s i b i l i t y h e c o u l d fulfill?" Resp. Exh. 122, p. 1. I n support, P e t i t i o n e r reiterated, verbatim. t h e a r g u m e n t c o n t a i n e d h i s b r i e f o n appeal a s q u o t e d above. [d. a t pp.4-5. G i v e n t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , P e t i t i o n e r d i d fairly p r e s e n t t h e o p e r a t i v e facts u n d e r l y i n g h i s c l a i m o f ineffective assistance o f counsel. W h i l e P e t i t i o n e r ' s c l a i m may n o t h a v e b e e n a r t f u l l y p r e s e n t e d a t t h e P C R t r i a l level, it w a s s u f f i c i e n t l y s i m i l a r t o t h e c l a i m s r a i s e d o n a p p e a l a n d p e t i t i o n for review. Accordingly, P e t i t i o n e r d i d n o t p r o c e d u r a l l y d e f a u l t his claim. N e v e r t h e l e s s , a s t h e following d i s c u s s i o n indicates. P e t i t i o n e r is n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f o n t h e m e r i t s o f h i s claim.
7 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N -
II.
R e l i e f on t h e M e r i t s A. Legal S t a n d a r d s
Under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(e)( 1), as amended b y t h e Antiterrorism a n d Effective Death Penalty A c t o f 1996, h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f m a y n o t b e g r a n t e d o n a n y c l a i m t h a t w a s a d j u d i c a t e d o n t h e m e r i t s i n state court, unless t h e adjudication: (1) resulted i n a decision t h a t was contrary to, o r involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d States; o r (2) resulted in a decision t h a t was based o n an unreasonable determination o f the facts i n light o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e S t a t e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g . A state c o u r t ' s determination o f a factual issue " s h a l l b e p r e s u m e d t o b e correct." 28 U.S. C.
§ 2254(e)( 1). Petitioner carries the b u r d e n o f rebutting this presumption o f correctness b y clear and
convincing evidence. Id. A s t a t e c o u r t d e c i s i o n is n o t c o n s i d e r e d " c o n t r a r y t o " e s t a b l i s h e d S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t u n l e s s i t " a p p l i e s a r u l e t h a t contradicts t h e governing l a w s e t f o r t h i n [Supreme C o u r t c a s e s ] " o r " c o n f r o n t s a s e t o f facts t h a t a r e m a t e r i a l l y i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m a d e c i s i o n o f [ t h e S u p r e m e ] Court a n d nevertheless arrives at a result different from [Supreme Court] precedent." Lockyer v.
Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 73 (2003). A federal habeas court c a n n o t overturn a state decision " s i m p l y
because that court concludes i n its independent j u d g m e n t t h a t the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal l a w erroneously o r incorrectly." WiJ/iams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 3 6 2 , 4 0 9 (2000). A s t a t e c o u r t d e c i s i o n c a n b e o v e r t u r n e d for l e g a l e r r o r o n l y i f t h e s t a t e c o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n o f Supreme Court case l a w w a s "objectively unreasonable." Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 793 8 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D An O N -
(2001). Federal courts " m a y not second-guess a state c o u r t ' s fact-fmding process unless, after r e v i e w o f t h e s t a t e - c o u r t record, i t d e t e n n i n e s t h a t t h e state c o u r t w a s n o t m e r e l y w r o n g , b u t actually unreasonable." Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 9 9 2 , 9 9 9 (9th Cir. 2004). T h e Supreme C o u r t h a s established a t w o - p a r t t e s t t o determine whether a defendant h a s r e c e i v e d i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f counsel. U n d e r t h i s test, a p e t i t i o n e r m u s t p r o v e t h a t c o u n s e l ' s p e r f o r m a n c e fell b e l o w a n o b j e c t i v e s t a n d a r d o f r e a s o n a b l e n e s s , a n d t h a t t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , b u t f o r c o u n s e l ' s u n p r o f e s s i o n a l errors, t h e r e s u l t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n different. Strick/and v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-888 (1987). T o p r o v e a d e f i c i e n t p e r f o r m a n c e o f c o u n s e l , a p e t i t i o n e r m u s t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t r i a l counsel " m a d e e r r o r s t h a t a r e a s o n a b l y c o m p e t e n t a t t o r n e y as a d i l i g e n t a n d c o n s c i e n t i o u s a d v o c a t e w o u l d n o t have made." Butcher v. Marquez, 7S8 F.2d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1985). The test is whether the a s s i s t a n c e was r e a s o n a b l y e f f e c t i v e u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a n d j u d i c i a l s c r u t i n y m u s t b e h i g h l y d e f e r e n t i a l , w i t h t h e c o u r t i n d u l g i n g a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e a t t o r n e y ' s c o n d u c t falls w i t h i n t h e w i d e r a n g e o f r e a s o n a b l e p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e . S t r i c k l a n d , 4 6 6 U . S . a t 689. Where a petitioner has p l e a d e d guilty o r no contest o n the advice o f counsel, t h e " v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f t h e p l e a depends o n w h e t h e r c o u n s e l ' s a d v i c e w a s w i t h i n t h e r a n g e o f c o m p e t e n c e demanded o f a t t o m e y s in criminal cases." Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, S6 (1985). T h e p r e j u d i c e p r o n g , i n t u r n , r e q u i r e s t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o s h o w t h a t t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y that, b u t for c o u n s e l ' s errors, he would n o t have p l e d guilty and w o u l d have insisted o n going to trial. ld. a t 59;
L a m b e r t v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 9 4 3 , 9 8 0 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 963 (2005).
9 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N -
B.
Analysis
A t P e t i t i o n e r ' s c h a n g e o f p l e a hearing, the trial j u d g e e n g a g e d P e t i t i o n e r i n a n e x t e n s i v e c o l l o q u y a b o u t t h e t e n n s o f h i s a g r e e m e n t a n d t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s thereof: T H E C O U R T : . . . I h a v e a p e t i t i o n t o e n t e r a p l e a o f g u i l t y t o five c o u n t s o f R o b b e r y i n t h e F i r s t D e g r e e w i t h a F i r e a r m , five c o u n t s o f K i d n a p i n g i n the S e c o n d D e g r e e w i t h a F i r e a r m . I n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e s e c o n d p a g e , r i g h t here, is a s i g n a t u r e , and I want to k n o w i f t h a t ' s your signature. Y o u have a copy i n front o f you, sir. P E T I T I O N E R : ( T h r o u g h a n i n t e r p r e t e r ) Yes. T H E COURT: B e f o r e y o u s i g n e d t h i s p a p e r , d i d y o u discuss i t thoroughly w i t h b o t h y o u r l a w y e r a n d t h r o u g h -- d i d y o u n e e d the u s e o f a n i n t e r p r e t e r ? PETITIONER: Always, yes. T H E C O U R T : Okay, w a s t h e i n t e r p r e t e r p r e s e n t ? PETITIONER: Yes~ T H E COURT: A n d d i d y o u understand everything y o u r l a w y e r t o l d y o u a b o u t this paper? PETITIONER: Yes. T H E C O U R T : I n j u s t a m o m e n t , I ' m g o i n g t o go t h r o u g h t h e s a m e t h i n g t h e l a w y e r t a l k e d to y o u a b o u t i n t h i s p a p e r , b u t I n e x t w a n t t o t a l k b o u t t h i s o t h e r d o c u m e n t t h a t says Agreement at the top. A n d i t consists o f one, two, three, four -- a t o t a l o f five pages, a n d again, t h e r e ' s a line that says, "Ivan Ortega-Gonzalez," o n the f i f t h p a g e , r i g h t h e r e , a n d I w a n t to k n o w i f t h a t ' s y o u r s i g n a t u r e ? PETITIONER: Yes. T H E C O U R T : A n d a g a i n , b e f o r e y o u s i g n e d t h e p a p e r , d i d y o u d i s c u s s i t all w i t h your lawyer t h r o u g h y o u r interpreter? PETITIONER: Yes. T H E C O U R T : D o y o u u n d e r s t a n d everything t h a t w a s d i s c u s s e d w i t h . y o u ?
10 - FINDINGS A N D RECOMIv1ENDATION -
PETITIONER: Yes. Resp. Exh. 104, pp. 10-11. The t r i a l j u d g e t h e n a d d r e s s e d P e t i t i o n e r ' s attorney a b o u t t h e n a t u r e o f h i s d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h Petitioner: THE COURT: Now, Mr. Karpinski, for the record, did you discuss the entire content o f e a c h o f t h e s e documents w i t h your client? C O U N S E L : Yes, o n t h e p l e a p e t i t i o n , w e w e n t o v e r l i n e b y l i n e e a c h p a r a g r a p h before he signed it. I ' m comfortable that h e fully understands the rights h e ' s giving up i n paragraph 5; the m a x i m u m sentences o n the cases; t h e p l e a offer as described b y [the prosecutor]; and the requirements o f t h e cooperation agreement. W i t h respect t o the cooperation agreement I w e n t o v e r t h e agreement a b o u t h o w -- you, what -- there w a s going to b e 10 counts here; t h e r e ' s going to b e a count i n Clackamas County; that the net effect o f this is that i t ' s going to b e 110 months, a n d c r e d i t for t i m e s e r v e d i f h e p e r f o r m s u n d e r t h i s c o o p e r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t . I also talked to him about ways that he might lose this deal. We talked about t h a t r e p e a t e d l y . P a r t i c u l a r l y t h a t h e h a s t o c o n t i n u e to c o o p e r a t e ; h e h a s t o c o n t i n u e -- he has to testify truthfully a n d continue to cooperate w i t h the State, through the resolution o f [his co-defendant' s] matters. So I think h e ' s fully apprized o f all the -- all t h e matters contained i n both' t h e p l e a p e t i t i o n and t h e Agreement.
[d. at pp. 11-12.
The trial j u d g e proceeded to go over i n some detail P e t i t i o n e r ' s rights a n d options in e n t e r i n g t h e guilty p l e a , h e d i s c u s s e d e a c h o f t h e charges i n d i v i d u a l l y w i t h Petitioner, a n d h e a d v i s e d P e t i t i o n e r o f t h e m a x i m u m p o s s i b l e s e n t e n c e o f 170 y e a r s i n p r i s o n . T h e C o u r t t h e n addressed t h e cooperation agreement as follows: THE COURT: Now, I ' v e been t o l d that the agreement is that w e run a l o t o f these sentences a t the same time, a n d so the maximum sentence that would b e imposed is 110 months. That would b e t h e agreement w e ' v e reached. Is t h a t correct, sir? 11 - FINDINGS A N D RECOMMENDATION -
PETITIONER: Yes.
* * '"
THE COURT: Now, I ' m also told that the reason that the State would agree to the 110 months is i f you fulfilled the t e n n s o f t h i s other document which is entitled Agreement. I s t h a t y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g ? PETITIONER: Yes. THE COURT: I want to go over parts o f this agreement to make sure you understand. First is that you would plead guilty t o the t e n counts we discussed here as well as another count o f Robbery i n t h e F i r s t Degree with a F i r e a n n i n C l a c k a m a s C o u n t y , Oregon; i s t h a t y o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g ? PETITIONER: Yes. THE COURT: And that as to the Clackamas County matter, i f you fully comply w i t h t h e A g r e e m e n t y o u ' l l receive a s e n t e n c e o f 9 0 m o n t h s t o r u n c o n c u r r e n t w h i c h would n o t add any more time to your sentence. Is that your understanding? PETITIONER: Yes. THE COURT: Now, i n order to gain the benefit o f that bargain, this document says t h a t y o u ' r e w i l l i n g t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h t h e S t a t e o f Oregon, w h e n t h e y r e q u e s t i t o f you, that you' would cooperate fully and truthfully which would include meeting with members o f the police force o r district attorney's office, which would include testifying i n cases i f called upon in putting this case against your co-defendant. Is t h a t your u n d e r s t a n d i n g ? PETITIONER: Yes. T H E COURT: A n d d o y o u u n d e r s t a n d t h a t i f y o u d o n ' t f u l l y c o m p l y w i t h t h i s agreement you are already -- you will have already given up your right to trial i n this case, and the State is free to ask for any sentence the law allows, which I assure you will be greater than 110 months? D o y o u understand that? PETITIONER: Yes.
'" '" *
12 - FINDINGS A N D RECOMMENDATION -
THE C O U R T : N o w , sir, has anyone promised y o u anything t h a t we h a v e n ' t discussed? P E T m O N E R : No.
THE C O U R T : H a s a n y b o d y t h r e a t e n e d o r f o r c e d y o u t o s i g n e i t h e r t h e P e t i t i o n t o E n t e r a P l e a o f Guilty or t h e C o o p e r a t i o n A g r e e m e n t ?
PETITIONER: N o .
Id. a t 17-19.
Petitioner n o w argues that h i s t r i a l attorney h a d r e a s o n t o believe P e t i t i o n e r ' s c o - d e f e n d a n t w a s m e n a c i n g a n d d a n g e r o u s a n d t h a t , t o a s s i s t h i s c l i e n t i n c o m p l y i n g w i t h the c o o p e r a t i o n agreement, i t w a s c r u c i a l for c o u n s e l t o m a k e e v e r y e f f o r t t o e n s u r e P e t i t i o n e r w a s p r o t e c t e d . U n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , P e t i t i o n e r claims, t h i s m e a n t i t w a s n e c e s s a r y for c o u n s e l to c o o r d i n a t e w i t h t h e s t a t e ' s attorney, a r r a n g e f o r s p e c i a l h o u s i n g a t t h e j a i l , a n d o t h e r w i s e e n s u r e P e t i t i o n e r w o u l d b e p r o t e c t e d f r o m t h e c o - d e f e n d a n t ' s r e p r i s a l s . B e c a u s e c o u n s e l d i d n o t do so, P e t i t i o n e r c o n c l u d e s , his p l e a w a s n o t voluntary, k n o w i n g , o r intelligent. The state P C R c o u r t s r e j e c t e d this claim. I n t h e P C R trial p r o c e e d i n g , the State p r e s e n t e d t h e e f f o r t s c o u n s e l m a d e to s e c u r e t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t a t P e t i t i o n e r ' s r e q u e s t a n d s u b m i t t e d a n affidavit from P e t i t i o n e r ' s criminal trial attorney stating, inter alia: 6. . . . [ W ] h e n [ p e t i t i o n e r ] w a s c a l l e d t o t e s t i f y a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r d e f e n d a n t , he panicked and refused t o provide information against the co-defendant. This w a s i n p a r t d u e to v a r i o u s t h r e a t s t h a t w e r e m a d e b y t h e c o - d e f e n d a n t t h r o u g h t h i r d p a r t i e s a g a i n s t [ P e t i t i o n e r ] a n d h i s family. T h e c o - d e f e n d a n t w a s a t r u e p s y c h o p a t h a n d [ P e t i t i o n e r ] w a s t r u l y a f r a i d a n d h i s fear w a s p r o b a b l y r e a s o n a b l e .
***
13 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N -
8. As a result o f [petitioner's] unwillingness t o follow t h r o u g h w i t h the p l e a deal, he ultimately r e c e i v e d a 1 8 0 - m o n t h sentence from Judge Marshall A m i t o n despite m y e f f o r t s t o h o l d t h e total s e n t e n c e t o s o m e t h i n g reasonable.
9. I did later testify o n [petitioner's] b e h a l f i n a Clackamas County robbery c a s e p r o s e c u t e d a f t e r [ P e t i t i o n e r ] b l e w t h e p l e a deal. F o r t u n a t e l y , t h e C l a c k a m a s C o u n t y Circuit Court sentenced [petitioner] to 90 months concurrent w i t h the rest o f his sentences, so his total sentence is 180 months.
10. Although I regret t h a t [petitioner] received a long p r i s o n sentence, I k n o w I d i d e v e r y t h i n g I c o u l d for h i m . H e p u t h i m s e l f i n a v e r y d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n b y participating i n f o u r a r m e d robberies w i t h h i s c o - d e f e n d a n t and t h e n c o n f e s s i n g t o t h e p o l i c e . Y e t , w h e n f a v o r a b l e d e a l s w e r e a r r a n g e d , h e l e t his f e a r o f t h e c o d e f e n d a n t k e e p h i m from m a k i n g t h e b e s t o f a b a d b u s i n e s s . I c a n n o t t h i n k o f a n y o t h e r s t e p s I r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d h a v e t a k e n to i m p r o v e h i s c h a n c e s f o r a n a c q u i t t a l , h a d h e g o n e to trial, o r for a s h o r t e r sentence. Resp. Exh. 116, pp. 3-4. T h e State also p r e s e n t e d the transcripts f r o m the c h a n g e o f p l e a h e a r i n g a n d t h e sentencing, as well as an affidavit o f the prosecuting attorney, w h o explained t h a t the offer made to Petitioner w a s t h e b e s t o f f e r t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e w a s p r e p a r e d t o make.
I n P e t i t i o n e r ' s d e p o s i t i o n for t h e P C R p r o c e e d i n g , h e a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t h e w a s a w a r e t h a t
h e would n o t get the deal for 110 m o n t h s i f he d i d n o t testify against his co-defendant, and e x p l a i n e d t o t h e s t a t e ' s a t t o r n e y the r e a s o n h e d i d n o t t e s t i f y as follows: COUNSEL: Mr. Gonzalez, you k n e w t h a t you w e r e n ' t going t o g e t the deal for 110 m o n t h s i f y o u d i d n ' t testify a g a i n s t y o u r co-defendant, right? P E T I T I O N E R : ( T h r o u g h a n interpreter.) W e l l , a s I said, I d i d n ' t h a v e any o t h e r option. COUNSEL: W h y c o u l d n ' t y o u testify a g a i n s t y o u r co-defendant? PETITIONER: No. COUNSEL: W h y c o u l d n ' t y o u testify against h i m ? 14 - F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N -
PETITIONER: I d o n ' t know, b u t I k n o w I c o u l d n ' t . C O U N S E L : Were you scared o f y o u r c o - d e f e n d a n t ? P E T I T I O N E R : W e l l , i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e , I h a d n ' t k n o w n h i m v e r y long. I t h a d n ' t b e e n very long a t i m e since I had m e t him. COUNSEL: So w h y d i d n ' t y o u testify against him then? PETITIONER: Because I do n o t w a n t t o h a v e to spend t i m e i n the hole. Or h o w do I k n o w ? M a y b e t h e y ' l l b e b e a t i n g m e . Resp. Exh. 114, p. 16. O n cross-examination, P e t i t i o n e r ' s P C R trial attorney clarified: C O U N S E L : Mr. G o n z a l e z , d i d y o u r e a l i z e t h e s e n t e n c e w a s u p t o t h e j u d g e a n d you m i g h t n o t g e t a 110-month sentence b u t a l o n g e r sentence w h e n y o u p l e d guilty? PETITIONER: No.
Id. a t p. 18.
T h e P C R t r i a l j u d g e d e n i e d relief. A t t h e c l o s e o f t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , t h e j u d g e stated: T H E COURT: . . . N o w , t h e C o u r t h a s reviewed the [ S t a t e ' s ] trial memorandum a n d t h e C o u r t finds t h a t i t i s v e r y p e r s u a s i v e i n i t s r e a s o n i n g , a n d t h e C o u r t a d o p t s t h a t r e a s o n i n g as i t s o w n a n d i n c o r p o r a t e s t h a t r e a s o n i n g i n t h e C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s , a n d conclusions. I t i s o r d e r e d t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n for p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f i s d e n i e d b a s e d o n t h e following findings a n d c o n c l u s i o n s . F i r s t , the p e t i t i o n e r d i d r e c e i v e a d e q u a t e a s s i s t a n c e o f t r i a l c o u n s e l . Further, [ p ] e t i t i o n e r knowingly, intelligently, a n d v o l u n t a r i l y p l e d g u i l t y to t h e charges. N e x t , t r i a l counsel d i d n o t c o e r c e the [ p ] e t i t i o n e r i n t o a c c e p t i n g t h e S t a t e ' s p l e a offer.
15 - FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N -
Next, [p]etitioner failed t o c o m p l y w i t h his o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t t h a t h e cooperate w i t h t h e State a n d t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f N o e l R e y e s Mauro, - a - u - r - o . A n d , finally, p e t i t i o n e r h a s f a i l e d t o s u s t a i n h i s b u r d e n o f p r o o f b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e a s t o all o f h i s c l a i m s f o r relief. T h i s p e t i t i o n i n v o l v e s b o t h federal a n d state c o n s t i t u t i o n a l issues. I t is t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e C o u r t t h a t j u d g m e n t b e g i v e n i n f a v o r o f t h e [State]. R e s p . E x h . 1 1 8 , p p . 17-18. T h e P C R t r i a l j u d g e ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a r e a m p l y s u p p o r t e d b y t h e record. P e t i t i o n e r d i d n o t p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e i n support o f h i s claims t h a t there w a s something m o r e counsel c o u l d h a v e done o r w a s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y r e q u i r e d t o do b e f o r e the p l e a a g r e e m e n t w a s r e a c h e d . M o r e o v e r , P e t i t i o n e r failed to s h o w p r e j u d i c e as t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a c l a i m t h a t h i s a t t o r n e y c o u l d h a v e negotiated a better settlement o r t h a t Petitioner w o u l d n o t h a v e entered t h e p l e a agreement in t h e fIrst p l a c e , b u t w o u l d h a v e i n s t e a d p r o c e e d e d t o t r i a l . T h e P C R j u d g e ' s f i n d i n g s a r e e n t i t l e d t o deference because Petitioner d i d n o t p r e s e n t c l e a r a n d convincing evidence i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g t o overcome them. Finally, t h e P C R c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t P e t i t i o n e r did n o t receive ineffective a s s i s t a n c e o f counsel is n o t contrary t o o r an u n r e a s o n a b l e application o f clearly established federal law. A s such, P e t i t i o n e r i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f o n t h e m e r i t s o f h i s claim.
RECOMMENDATION
F o r t h e s e reasons, t h e P e t i t i o n f o r W r i t o f H a b e a s C o r p u s s h o u l d b e D E N I E D , a n d a j u d g m e n t o f D I S M I S S A L s h o u l d b e entered.
16 - F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N -
SCHEDULING O R D E R
T h e a b o v e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n a r e r e f e r r e d to a U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t J u d g e for review. Objections, i f any, are due N o v e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 . I f n o objections are filed, review o f the Findings and Recommendation will go WIder advisement that date. A party m a y respond t o another p a r t y ' s objections w i t h i n 10 days after filing o f the objections. I f objections are filed, r e v i e w o f the Findings and Recommendation will go WIder a d v i s e m e n t u p o n r e c e i p t o f t h e r e s p o n s e , o r o n t h e l a t e s t date f o r f i l i n g a r e s p o n s e . D A T E D t h i s i t - d a y o f N o v e m b e r , 2009.
0. ~/'/IAcosta t a t e s Magistrate Judge
17 - FINDINGS AND R E C O M M E N D An O N -
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
