EMILIO BLEA V. MARK NOOTH, No. 09-36129 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 10 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EMILIO J. BLEA, No. 09-36129 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01540-BR v. MEMORANDUM * MARK NOOTH; SNAKE RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 8, 2012 ** Portland, Oregon Before: TASHIMA, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Petitioner-appellant Emilio J. Blea ( Blea ) appeals the district court s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). aggravated murder, in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.095, and robbery in the first degree, in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. § 164.415. Blea claims that the advice provided by his trial counsel was constitutionally inadequate, thereby rendering his guilty plea to aggravated murder unknowing and involuntary. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. The Oregon state court s rejection of Blea s claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 59 (1985). According to Blea, his counsel failed to explain that aggravated murder requires intent to kill the victim and, further, that if he lacked such intent, he could only be convicted of felony murder (a lesserincluded offense). But Blea s self-serving statements during post-conviction proceedings cannot overcome his admissions before the trial court and in his Plea Petition to the contrary, including that he understood the charges against him and that he had personally and intentionally caused the death of the victim. See Womack v. Del Papa, 497 F.3d 998, 1004 (9th Cir. 2007) ( Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 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.
