Loftis v. Almager

• Decision Date: 11 December 2012
• Docket Number: No. 09–16884.,09–16884.
• Parties: Derrick LOFTIS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Victor ALMAGER, Warden, Respondent–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

704 F.3d 645

Derrick LOFTIS, Petitioner–Appellant,

v.Victor ALMAGER, Warden, Respondent–Appellee.

No. 09–16884.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 16, 2012.

Filed Dec. 11, 2012.

Daniel J. Broderick, Federal Defender, Carolyn M. Wiggin, Assistant Federal Defender, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner–Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Barton Bowers, Deputy Attorney General, for the Respondent–Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 1:07–cv–010603–JAH–LSP.

Before: A. WALLACE TASHIMA and BARRY G. SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and LYNN S. ADELMAN,^* District Judge.

Opinion by Judge ADELMAN; Concurrence by Judge SILVERMAN; Dissent by Judge TASHIMA.

OPINION

ADELMAN, District Judge:

Petitioner–Appellant Derrick Loftis seeks a writ of habeas corpus challenging his California conviction of second degree murder. The district court denied the petition, but we issued a certificate of appealability regarding whether there was a sufficient factual basis to support Loftis's no contest plea and whether his plea was knowing and voluntary. We now affirm.

I. FACTS AND BACKGROUND

The pertinent facts, as set forth in the state appellate court's opinion, are as follows:

On February 27, 2004, [Loftis] and Richard Banuelos received a telephone call from 15–year–old Celena V. She informed them she wanted to buy an eight-ball of crystal methamphetamine. They went to pick her up and she got into the vehicle. They drove to the Holiday Lodge, where defendant kept his bag of methamphetamine. [Loftis] and Celena were in a room alone. Celena bought the methamphetamine from defendant for $100, then she smoked and snorted some of it. [Loftis] also consumed some with her. [Loftis] and Celena had been in the room for about 45 minutes when Celena began to “get ‘crazy’ by freaking out, getting hot and shaking.” Banuelos called and asked [Loftis] if they were ready to go. Banuelos arrived and the three of them left together. They went to [Loftis's] residence and Banuelos gave Celena some milk.

Leslie Saiz arrived at the residence. [Loftis] wanted to go to the Palace casino to look for his girlfriend. Although Celena had not improved, [Loftis] did not take her to the hospital just down the street because “it never crossed his mind.” Instead, the four of them got in the vehicle and drove toward the Palace. [Loftis] noticed Celena was not breathing. He shook her and told the others he wanted to take her to the hospital, but Saiz said [“N]o, ... she was [dead.”] They had decided not to seek medical care because they feared going to jail. They stopped on a gravel road and Saiz and Banuelos took Celena out of the car, laid her on the ground and covered her with tumbleweeds. [Loftis] did not get out because he was feeling too sick to move. They drove on to the Palace to meet [Loftis's] girlfriend.

Once at the Palace, [Loftis] played slot machines and met up with his girlfriend. They went home and [Loftis] was sick the whole day and night. [Loftis] thought the methamphetamine must have been bad since he also got sick.

The following night, Celena's parents filed a missing person report. About a month later, Celena's body was found and a few days after that [Loftis] was interviewed. He first denied any involvement in Celena's death, then stated she had overdosed. He then gave the preceding account.

People v. Loftis, No. F050676, 2007 WL 1248492, at *1 (Cal.Ct.App. May 1, 2007).

Initially charged with murder in the death of Celina V., along with four other counts, Loftis later agreed to plead no contest to second degree murder in exchange for dismissal of the other charges. The state trial court conducted a thorough plea colloquy, ensuring that Loftis understood the nature of the charges, the penalties he faced and the rights he was relinquishing. The following exchange then occurred:

“THE COURT: Factual basis.

“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, pursuant to People versus West [ (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 91 Cal.Rptr. 385, 477 P.2d 409, defendant] is entering this plea to avoid the possibility of being convicted of first degree murder.

“THE COURT: Is that correct, [Prosecutor]?

“[PROSECUTOR]: That is correct, it's People versus West.

“THE COURT: Okay. The Court will accept, will be willing to accept it pursuant to People versus West.

Id. at *3. The trial court then verified that Loftis understood his no contest plea and accepted it. At no point did Loftis proclaim his innocence or otherwise protest. The trial court later sentenced Loftis to 15 years to life in prison.

Loftis appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to establish a factual basis for his no contest plea. Specifically, he argued that the record failed to present such a basis because there was no evidence that he intended to kill Celena and no evidence that he engaged in an inherently dangerous felony when he sold the methamphetamine to Celena. The state appellate court agreed that a factual basis was necessary as a matter of California law but found that any error was harmless because the record contained facts supporting a finding that Loftis knew that his failure to seek medical care for Celena placed her life in danger and, therefore, constituted “implied malice murder” under California law. The California Supreme Court denied Loftis's petition for review.

II. DISCUSSION

It is axiomatic that habeas relief lies only for violations of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; errors of state law will not suffice. E.g., Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). Consequently, we must determine whether Loftis's factual basis claim raises a federal constitutional issue.

The Constitution requires that a plea be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. E.g., Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). The record must show that the defendant voluntarily relinquished his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to trial by jury and his right to confront his accusers, e.g., United States v. Escamilla–Rojas, 640 F.3d 1055, 1062 (9th Cir.2011), cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 101, 184 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012), and that he understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea, e.g., Tanner v. McDaniel, 493 F.3d 1135, 1146–47 (9th Cir.2007); Little v. Crawford, 449 F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir.2006).

Beyond these essentials, the Constitution “does not impose strict requirements on the mechanics of plea proceedings.” Escamilla–Rojas, 640 F.3d at 1062 (citing Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 747 n. 4, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970)). While Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and its state analogs require additional safeguards, violations of such rules do not ordinarily render a plea constitutionally infirm and thus vulnerable to collateral attack. See, e.g., United States v. Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783–84, 99 S.Ct. 2085, 60 L.Ed.2d 634 (1979); see also Estelle, 502 U.S. at 68 n. 2, 112 S.Ct. 475.

Among the requirements imposed on trial judges by rule—but not the Constitution—is the finding of a factual basis. See, e.g., Higgason v. Clark, 984 F.2d 203, 208 (7th Cir.1993) (“Putting a factual basis for the plea on the record has become familiar as a result of statutes and rules, not as a result of constitutional compulsion.”). Accordingly, habeas courts have held that, unless a plea is accompanied by protestations of innocence or other “special circumstances,” the Constitution does not require state judges to find a factual basis. E.g., Rodriguez v. Ricketts, 777 F.2d 527, 528 (9th Cir.1985); see also Meyers v. Gillis, 93 F.3d 1147, 1151 (3d Cir.1996) ( “Put simply, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not require an on-the-record development of the factual basis supporting a guilty plea before entry of the plea, and the failure of a state court to elicit a factual basis before accepting a guilty plea does not in itself provide a ground for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”). Cf. Willett v. State of Ga., 608 F.2d 538, 540 (5th Cir.1979) (holding that under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), “when a defendant pleads guilty while claiming his or her innocence, the court commits constitutional error in accepting the plea unless the plea is shown to have a factual basis”).

Loftis cannot obtain habeas relief because the state trial court's failure to find a factual basis for his no contest plea—unaccompanied by protestations of innocence—does not present a constitutional issue cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See, e.g., Bonior v. Conerly, 416 Fed.Appx. 475, 476 (6th Cir.2010) (holding that a prisoner's claim that there was an insufficient factual basis to support his no contest plea to lesser charges was not cognizable in federal habeas corpus); Green v. Koerner, 312 Fed.Appx. 105, 108 (10th Cir.2009) (holding that a prisoner's claim that the state court lacked a factual basis to support a no contest plea did not, by itself, present a basis to invalidate her plea in a federal habeas corpus action); Foote v. Ward, 207 Fed.Appx. 927, 930 (10th Cir.2006) (holding that only if the defendant claims innocence does he obtain the added protection of Alford );Kirk v. Cline, No. 09–3187–WEB, 2011 WL 5597362, at *8 (D.Kan. Nov. 17, 2011) (collecting cases and noting that the “due process clause does not require more of a factual basis or other more stringent standards for a no contest plea than a guilty plea”); see also Post v. Bradshaw, 621 F.3d 406, 426–27 (6th Cir.2010) (noting that failure to find a factual basis for a no contest plea would be a violation only of state law, not cognizable in habeas), cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2902, 179 L.Ed.2d 1249 (2...