United States District Court, D. Oregon
OPINION AND ORDER
Aiken, United States District Judge.
an inmate at Snake River Correctional Institution, filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2254, alleging that his guilty plea was not constitutionally
valid and he received ineffective assistance of counsel when
entering his plea. For the reasons discussed below, the
petition is denied.
2009, petitioner was charged with five counts of Sodomy in
the First Degree, five counts of Rape in the First Degree,
five Counts of Unlawful Penetration in the First Degree, and
five counts of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree. Resp't
Exs. 102. The charges arose from the sexual abuse of
petitioner's 10-year-old step-daughter, and petitioner
faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 300 months'
imprisonment if convicted on any of the charges at trial.
Resp'tEx. 102, Ex. 105 at 4.
January 12, 2010, petitioner pled guilty to three counts of
Sexual Abuse in the First Degree pursuant to a plea
agreement. As part of the agreement, the State dismissed the
remaining counts and recommended a sentence of 200 months.
Resp't Ex. 103 at 1-2.
March 30, 2010, the trial court sentenced petitioner to 200
months' imprisonment. Resp'tEx. 101.
initially appealed the trial court judgment but ultimately
dismissed his appeal. Resp't Exs. 106-07.
April 30, 2012, petitioner filed a petition for
post-conviction relief (PCR) in state court and alleged,
among other claims, that trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance by failing to ensure that petitioner's plea
was knowing and voluntary. Resp't Ex. 108 (fourth amended
PCR petition). The PCR court denied relief, the Oregon Court
of Appeal affirmed without opinion, and the Oregon Supreme
Court denied review. Resp't Exs. 162-64, 166-68.
January 26, 2016, petitioner filed this federal habeas
pro se petition, petitioner asserts forty-two grounds for
relief, with several claims including numerous sub-parts.
Pet. at 10-132 (ECF No. 2). In his counseled supporting
brief, petitioner presents arguments on Grounds One, Two, and
subparts Twenty-Three and Twenty-Four of Ground Eleven.
Pet'r Brief at 1 (ECF No. 48). Aside from these specific
grounds, petitioner presents no argument to support the
merits of his claims and fails to establish entitlement to
habeas relief on Grounds Three through Ten; the remaining
subparts of Ground Eleven; and Grounds Twelve through
Forty-Two. Mayes v. Premo, 766 F.3d 949, 957 (9th
Cir. 2014) (a habeas petitioner bears the burden of proving
Grounds One and Two
Grounds One and Two, petitioner alleges that his trial
counsel failed to ensure that he was competent at the time he
entered his guilty plea, and, as a result, his plea was not
knowing or voluntary. Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance of counsel requires
deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice).
The PCR and appellate courts rejected these claims, and
respondent maintains that the state court decisions are
entitled to deference.
federal court may not grant a habeas petition regarding any
claim "adjudicated on the merits" in state court,
unless the state court ruling "was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). A state court
decision is "contrary to" established federal law
if it fails to apply the correct Supreme Court authority, or
if it reaches a different result in a case with facts
"materially indistinguishable" from relevant
Supreme Court precedent. Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S.
133, 141 (2005); Williams v. Taylor,529 U.S. 362,
405-06 (2000). A state court decision is an
"unreasonable application" of clearly established
federal law if the state court identifies the correct legal
principle but applies it in an "objectively unreasonable
manner." Woodford v. Visciotti,537 U.S. 19,
24-25 (2002) (per curiam); Williams, 529 U.S. at
407-08, 413; see also Early v. Packer,537 U.S. 3,
11 (2002) (per curiam) (state court decisions that are not
"contrary to" Supreme ...