Carillo-Carillo v. Coursey, No. 14-35897 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, an Oregon state prisoner, appealed the district court's dismissal of his federal habeas petition with prejudice after concluding that petitioner had not fairly presented his claims to the Oregon state court first. The court concluded that petitioner fairly presented to the Oregon courts his claims that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by unduly pressuring him into accepting the no contest plea, and that his decision to enter the plea and waive his right to a jury trial was not knowingly and voluntarily made. In this case, petitioner attempted to present his claims in proper form by filing Section B of a Balfour brief and expressly incorporating his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition by reference under the heading "Argument." That petitioner may have done this under the wrong heading is surely less serious error than the one found excusable in Farmer v. Baldwin. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. Reversing the district court’s judgment dismissing Oregon state prisoner Vidal Carrillo-Carrillo’s federal habeas corpus petition, the panel held that Carrillo-Carrillo fairly presented to the Oregon courts his claims that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by unduly pressuring him into accepting a no contest plea and that his decision to enter the plea and waive his right to a jury trial was not knowingly and voluntarily made. The panel explained that Carrillo-Carrillo fairly presented his claims, where he (1) attached his petition for post- conviction relief to the Balfour brief filed by counsel on his behalf in the Oregon Court of Appeals, (2) expressly incorporated by reference his PCR petition into Section B of the Balfour brief, and (3) filed in the Oregon Supreme Court a petition for review that incorporated by reference Section B of his Balfour brief.
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.