Cuero v. Cate

• Decision Date: 30 June 2016
• Docket Number: No. 12–55911,12–55911
• Citation: 827 F.3d 879
• Parties: Michael Daniel Cuero, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Matthew Cate, Respondent–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

827 F.3d 879

Michael Daniel Cuero, Petitioner–Appellant

v.Matthew Cate, Respondent–Appellee.

No. 12–55911

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted August 5, 2015 Pasadena, California

Filed June 30, 2016

Devin Burstein (argued), Warren & Burstein, San Diego, California, for Petitioner–Appellant.

Anthony Da Silva (argued) and Matthew Mulford, Deputy Attorneys General; Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General; Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California; Office of the Attorney General, San Diego, California; for Respondent–Appellee.

Before: Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Barry G. Silverman, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.

Dissent by Judge O'Scannlain

OPINION

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge:

On December 8, 2005, Michael Daniel Cuero stood in open court before the Honorable Charles W. Ervin, Judge of the Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego, and pursuant to a written plea agreement, he freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty to one felony count of causing bodily injury while driving under the influence and one felony count of unlawful possession of a firearm. Cuero also admitted a single prior strike conviction¹ and four prison priors.² In exchange for Cuero's waiver of his constitutional and numerous other rights, the prosecution dismissed a misdemeanor count, thereby guaranteeing Cuero a maximum sentence of 14 years, 4 months in prison and 4 years of parole, as explained both in the written plea agreement, Appendix A, ¶ 7a, and by Judge Ervin during the plea colloquy. Judge Ervin then accepted Cuero's plea and admissions, and set sentencing for January 11, 2006. That same day, Judge Ervin signed the Finding and Order, Appendix A at 3, stating that “the defendant is convicted thereby.”

Cuero stood convicted; “nothing remain[ed] but to give judgment and determine punishment.” Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Under clearly established Supreme Court law, the plea agreement bound the government. See Mabry v. Johnson , 467 U.S. 504, 507–08, 104 S.Ct. 2543, 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984) (a defendant's guilty plea “implicates the Constitution,” not the “plea bargain standing alone”); Santobello v. New York , 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971) (“[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.”); Boykin , 395 U.S. at 242, 244, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (“[A] plea of guilty is more than an admission of conduct; it is a conviction.”). In Cuero's case, the government was bound by its agreement in open court that punishment could be no greater than 14 years, 4 months in prison. See Ricketts v. Adamson , 483 U.S. 1, 5 n. 3, 107 S.Ct. 2680, 97 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987) (“[T]he construction of [a] plea agreement and the concomitant obligations flowing therefrom are, within broad bounds of reasonableness, matters of state law.”); see also Buckley v. Terhune , 441 F.3d 688, 694 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (“Under Santobello v. New York , 404 U.S. 257, 261–62, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), a criminal defendant has a due process right to enforce the terms of his plea agreement.”).

Improbably, the day before the scheduled sentencing, the state prosecutor moved to amend the criminal complaint to allege an additional prior strike conviction, which, if allowed, would result in an indeterminate 64 years to life sentence under California's three strikes law.³ Even more improbably, a different Superior Court judge than Judge Ervin permitted the amendment. Not only did the prosecution breach the plea agreement by seeking to amend the complaint after the deal was sealed, the Superior Court judge unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court authority by failing to recognize that the “breach [was] undoubtedly a violation of the defendant's rights.” Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 136, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009) (citing Santobello , 404 U.S. at 262, 92 S.Ct. 495 ). That the Superior Court allowed Cuero to withdraw his guilty plea and enter a new plea agreement calling for an indeterminate 25 years to life sentence was no remedy here; Cuero lost the benefit of his original bargain.

Because the state court neither recognized nor applied clearly established Supreme Court authority, and acted in contravention of that authority, we reverse the judgment of the district court denying Cuero's habeas petition, and we remand with instructions to issue the writ of habeas corpus.

I. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review⁴

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo a district court's denial of a habeas petition. Hurles v. Ryan , 752 F.3d 768, 777 (9th Cir. 2014). Because Cuero filed his federal habeas petition after April 24, 1996, the Anti–Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) governs our review. Id.

AEDPA bars relitigation of any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court, unless the state court's decision satisfies the exceptions contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1) or (2). Harrington v. Richter , 562 U.S. 86, 98, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). Those exceptions authorize a grant of habeas relief where the relevant state-court decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court” or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1), (2).

“[A] state-court decision is contrary to Federal law 'if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by th[e Supreme] Court on a question of law,' or 'the state court confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at a result opposite to [the Supreme Court].' ” Murray v. Schriro , 745 F.3d 984, 997 (9th Cir. 2014) (alterations in original) (quoting Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 405, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) ). “A state-court decision is an 'unreasonable application' of Supreme Court precedent if 'the state court identifies the correct governing legal rule from th[e Supreme] Court's cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular state prisoner's case,' or 'the state court either unreasonably extends a legal principle from [Supreme Court] precedent to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context where it should apply.' ” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Williams , 529 U.S. at 407, 120 S.Ct. 1495 ).

We review the last reasoned decision of the state courts. “When a state court does not explain the reason for its decision, we 'look through' to the last state-court decision that provides a reasoned explanation capable of review.” Id. at 996 (quoting Shackleford v. Hubbard , 234 F.3d 1072, 1079 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2000) ). Where a reasoned state-court decision exists, we do not “evaluate all the hypothetical reasons that could have supported the high court's decision.” Cannedy v. Adams , 706 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir.), amended on denial of reh'g by 733 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2013) ; see also id . at 1159 (“Richter does not change our practice of 'looking through' summary denials to the last reasoned decision—whether those denials are on the merits or denials of discretionary review.” (footnote omitted)); Medley v. Runnels , 506 F.3d 857, 862–63 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (Judge Callahan writing for the majority). Here, we evaluate the San Diego Superior Court's decision to grant the prosecution's motion to amend the complaint following Cuero's entry of his original guilty plea and his conviction based on that plea.⁵

II. Discussion

A. Cuero entered a binding, judicially approved plea agreement and stood convicted.

Under clearly established Supreme Court law, Cuero stood convicted and his plea agreement became binding the moment the first Superior Court judge accepted his guilty plea. “A plea of guilty is more than a confession which admits that the accused did various acts; it is itself a conviction.” Boykin , 395 U.S. at 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709. And “[w]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled. ” Santobello , 404 U.S. at 262, 92 S.Ct. 495 (emphasis added); see also Peter Westen & David Westin, A Constitutional Law of Remedies for Broken Plea Bargains , 60 Calif. L. Rev. 471, 474 (1978) (citing the language quoted above as the “undisputed holding” of Santobello ). A defendant's guilty plea thus “implicates the Constitution,” transforming the plea bargain from a “mere executory agreement” into a binding contract. Mabry , 467 U.S. at 507–08, 104 S.Ct. 2543.⁶ In other words, a guilty plea seals the deal between the state and the defendant, and vests the defendant with “a due process right to enforce the terms of his plea agreement.” Buckley , 441 F.3d at 694 (citing Santobello , 404 U.S. at 261–62, 92 S.Ct. 495 ); see also Doe v. Harris , 640 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2011) ; Brown v. Poole , 337 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2003).

In Buckley v. Terhune, our court, sitting en banc, affirmed a grant of habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) that ordered specific enforcement of the terms of a plea agreement. 441 F.3d at 691. There, the state prosecutor offered a plea bargain: Buckley would provide cooperating testimony against his codefendants in return for which the prosecutor would dismiss his robbery and burglary charges and reduce the first degree murder charge against him to second degree. Id. Attached to the offer was a felony disposition statement that stated, under “Consequences of the Plea,” that Buckley could be sentenced to a “maximum possible term of 15 years .” I...