United States District Court, D. Oregon, Eugene Division
JOSE L. NAVARRO-PAREDES, Petitioner,
JEFF PREMO, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
YIM YOU UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is in the custody of the Oregon Department of Corrections. He
brings this habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. For the reasons set forth below,
petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(ECF No. 2) should be DENIED.
Petitioner's Habeas Claims
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, petitioner alleges three
grounds for relief, each containing multiple subparts. Pet.
(ECF No. 2). Respondent urges this court to deny habeas
relief, arguing that Ground One is procedurally defaulted,
Grounds One and Two lack merit, and Ground Three does not
present a cognizable claim for relief. Resp't Resp. 2
(ECF No. 25).
supporting brief, petitioner presents argument only in
support of Ground Two, Subpart Four, which alleges:
Trial counsel failed to adequately confer with petitioner.
Trial counsel failed to meet with petitioner a sufficient
number of times to allow petitioner to gain the basic
necessary understanding of his charges and sentencing
exposure, and failed to utilize a minimally competent
interpreter at those times when he did meet with petitioner
(who is a monolingual speaker of the Spanish language). Trial
counsel's failures in this regard were exacerbated by
petitioner's mild mental retardation. As the result of
trial counsel's deficient performance, petitioner did not
accept the State's plea offers and, lacking even a
rudimentary understanding of the elements of the crimes with
which he was charged and his exposure at sentencing,
proceeded to trial and received a 260-month sentence that was
approximately twice that offered by the State prior to trial.
Pet'r Br. in Supp. 5-6 (ECF No. 36); Pet., Ex. A, 2 (ECF
No. 2-1). Petitioner makes no attempt to refute
respondent's argument that he is not entitled to habeas
relief on his remaining claims, and states that he
“submits [his unargued claims] for this Court's
consideration on the existing record.” Pet'r Br. in
Factual and Procedural Background
October 9, 2009, a Multnomah County jury convicted petitioner
of seven counts of Unlawful Sexual Penetration in the First
Degree, six counts of Assault in the Fourth Degree, four
counts of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, one count of
Sodomy in the First Degree, one count of Strangulation, and
three counts of Rape in First Degree. Resp't Ex 101 (ECF No.
24). The trial court sentenced petitioner to a total of 260
months imprisonment. Id.
directly appealed his convictions, but the Oregon Court of
Appeals affirmed without opinion, and the Oregon Supreme
Court denied review. Resp't Exs. 104-108; State v.
Navarro-Paredes, 245 Or.App. 300, rev. denied,
351 Or. 318 (2011). Petitioner then sought state
post-conviction relief (“PCR”), alleging, among
others things, that trial counsel erred by failing to
“adequately confer” with him regarding the
charges and his sentencing exposure, resulting in his
rejection of the state's plea offers. Resp't Ex. 109
an evidentiary hearing, the PCR trial judge made the
following pertinent findings on the record:
There were three settlement conferences in this case in which
Petitioner had the opportunity to discuss this case with the
Court, his attorney, and the DA. This Court does not believe
that the only conversations with Petitioner and his attorney
was at settlement conference.
Petitioner says that the attorney called him names and was
basically disparaging. Clearly that didn't happen in
court or at settlement conference. So we know there were
additional conversations. I believe there were conversations,
and 1 do not believe that the ...