Rios v. Martin

Decision Date31 January 2022
Docket Number19-CV-0061-CVE-CDL
PartiesCESAR RIOS, Petitioner, v. JIMMY MARTIN, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER

CLAIRE V. EAGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. # 1) filed by petitioner Cesar Rios, a state inmate appearing pro se. Rios seeks federal habeas relief, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, from the judgment entered against him in the District Court of Nowata County, Case No. CF-2015-70. He attacks that judgment on two grounds, claiming (1) that he was convicted on the basis of a guilty plea that was not knowing and voluntary, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, and (2) that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that Rios has not shown that he is in state custody in violation of the Constitution or other federal law. The Court therefore denies the petition.

I. Background
A. Guilty plea and sentencing

In 2016, the State of Oklahoma (the state) filed a second amended information charging Rios and two co-defendants with six felony offenses: shooting with intent to kill, in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 652(A) (counts one, two and three), using a vehicle in discharging a weapon, in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. § 652(B) (count four), possessing a firearm during commission of a felony, in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. § 1287 (count five), and causing great bodily injury while eluding or attempting to elude a police officer, in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. § 540A(C) (count six). Dkt. # 8-1, Original Record (“O.R.”) vol. 1, at 47-48.[1] Rios was formally arraigned on April 4, 2016, and his case was set for a jury trial. Dkt. # 8-1, O.R. vol. 1, at 50. The case ultimately proceed to trial on November 14, 2016. Dkt. # 8-1, O.R. vol. 1, at 146.

At the beginning of the trial, Rios, who was represented by Daniel Giraldi (“plea counsel), waived his right to a jury trial and entered a blind plea of guilty as to all six counts. Dkt. # 8-1, O.R. vol. 1, at 146, 148 (written waiver form), 174-87 (written plea form); Dkt. # 8-3, Tr. Plea Hr'g, at 1-3. Before accepting Rios's plea, the trial court conducted a plea colloquy with Rios. Under oath and in open court, Rios told the trial court that he completed “plea paperwork” with plea counsel and that the answers therein were Rios's answers. Dkt. # 8-3, Tr. Plea Hr'g, at 3. The trial court identified the charges against Rios, asked he if understood those charges and asked if he understood that some of the offenses were “85 percent crimes.” Dkt. # 8-3, Tr. Plea Hr'g, at 4. Rios stated that he understood the charges and that some were 85 percent crimes. Dkt. # 8-3, Tr. Plea H'rg, at 4. The trial court then stated, “Okay. So Counts 1 through 4 are all 85 percent. And the range of punishment is 0 to life and/or 2 to life or 2 to 10 and 1 to 5. You understand these range of punishments.” Dkt. # 8-3, Tr. Plea Hr'g, at 4. Rios verbally responded that he understood the range of punishments. Dkt. # 8-3, Tr. Plea Hr'g, at 4. The trial court also asked Rios if he understood that, by entering a plea, he was “giving up [his] right to have a jury trial and all these rights that go along with that, ” and Rios verbalized that he understood the same. Dkt. # 8-3, Tr. Plea Hr'g, at 4-5. The following exchange then occurred between the trial court and Rios:

The Court: So you're entering what is known as a blind plea, Mr. Rios, leaving it to the Court. And we'll have argument, both the State will argue about what they're recommending and then your attorney will argue. And then we'll have a presentence investigation and they're going to send out a background check and make a recommendation.
Do you understand that.
Mr. Rios: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: And your pleas are guilty on these cases.
Mr. Rios: Yes.
The Court: So you wish to plead guilty today, Mr. Rios.
Mr. Rios: Okay. I kind of understand this, yes.
The Court: Well, it's up to you. You're -- do you want to plead guilty --
Mr. Rios: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: -- or not.
Mr. Rios: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: And if you want to enter a plea of guilty, like I said we're going to pass sentencing.
This says on May 28, 2015, while in Nowata County, you shot a firearm at police officers with intent to kill, used a vehicle to discharge a weapon, possessed a firearm during the commission of a felony, and caused great bodily harm while eluding a police officer. So he's felony eluding I guess. And there was I believe two other people with you.
Is that correct.
Mr. Rios: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: And so --
[Prosecutor]: And if I might, Judge. He is charged acting in concert in all counts.
The Court: Okay. So you understand that you're pleading guilty to all the counts which the State has filed against you, Mr. Rios.
Mr. Rios: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: Are you pleading guilty of your own free will.
Mr. Rios: Yes, Your Honor.

Dkt. # 8-3, Tr. Plea Hr'g, at 5-7. The trial court also asked plea counsel whether he had “gone over the [plea] paperwork with [Rios], ” and whether, in plea counsel's view, Rios “understands what he's doing today, ” was able to assist with trial preparation, and made a voluntary decision to waive the jury trial and enter the plea. Dkt. # 8-3, Tr. Plea Hr'g, at 7. Plea counsel responded, “Yes, Your Honor. He talked with me and his family as well.” Dkt. # 8-3, Tr. Plea Hr'g, at 7. Finally, before discussing scheduling issues related to the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated, without objection, “And so, Mr. Rios, I'll show that you were sworn and responded to questions under oath; you understand the nature, purpose, and consequence; your pleas of guilty are accepted; they're knowingly and voluntarily entered; you are competent; there's a factual basis; there's no priors.” Dkt. # 8-3, Tr. Plea Hr'g, at 8. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court asked Rios if he had “any questions, ” and Rios responded that he did not. Dkt. # 8-3, Tr. Plea H'rg, at 9-10.

The trial court held a sentencing hearing on January 20, 2017. Dkt. # 8-4, Tr. Sentencing Hr'g, at 1. After hearing testimony from one victim, Rios's younger sister, and Rios, and reviewing the presentence investigation report, the trial court imposed four life sentences (counts one, two, three and four), a 10-year prison sentence (count five), and a five-year prison sentence (count six), with the latter two sentences suspended. Dkt. # 8-4, Tr. Sentencing Hr'g, at 2, 30-31; Dkt. # 8-1, O.R. vol. 1, at 160. The trial court ordered that the four life sentences be served concurrently with each other and that the two suspended sentences be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to the life sentences. Dkt. # 8-3, Tr. Sentencing Hr'g, at 30-31; Dkt. # 8-1, O.R. vol. 1, at 160. The trial court advised Rios of his appeal rights and the process for taking an appeal following entry of a guilty plea. Dkt. # 8-3, Tr. Sentencing Hr'g, at 32-33.

B. Motion to withdraw plea

Represented by plea counsel, Rios timely moved to withdraw his plea on January 26, 2017, alleging that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Dkt. # 8-1, O.R. vol. 1, at 164-65. The trial court appointed Georgia Manley (“plea withdrawal counsel) to represent Rios and held a hearing on the motion on February 24, 2017. Dkt. # 8-1, O.R. vol. 1, at 198; Dkt. # 8-2, O.R. vol. 2, at 1; Dkt. # 8-5, Tr. Mot. Hr'g, at 4.

At the hearing, plea withdrawal counsel called Rios as a witness. Dkt. # 8-5, Tr. Mot. Hr'g, at 5. Rios testified that, on the date he entered his guilty plea, he understood the charges against him. Dkt. # 8-5, Tr. Mot. Hr'g, at 5. When asked about the basis for his motion to withdraw the plea, Rios stated, “I was not understanding what my attorney was telling me. He was just -- I was just going off of what he was saying and what he would tell me to do.” Dkt. # 8-5, Tr. Mot. Hr'g, at 6. Rios further testified that he met with plea counsel “like three times only, ” and that plea counsel “really wasn't explaining things.” Dkt. # 8-5, Tr. Mot. Hr'g, at 6. Rios testified that he did not understand “what a guilty plea is” and explained he specifically did not understand, “If I wanted to plead guilty to the things or like -- I can't remember if it is no contest or not guilty. I wasn't -- I was nervous and I just didn't understand. Too much things going on in my head and I wasn't paying attention.” Dkt. # 8-5, Tr. Mot. Hr'g, at 6. Rios testified that he did review the plea paperwork with plea counsel and that he felt that he had the opportunity to ask questions about things he did not understand. Dkt. # 8-5, Tr. Mot. Hr'g, at 6. He further testified that he did not understand the phrase “blind plea” because “it was [his] first time going through [the legal] process” and his first time in court on charges more serious than traffic tickets. Dkt. # 8-5, Tr. Mot. Hr'g, at 7. Rios testified that when he entered his guilty plea, he understood that he had the right to a jury trial but that he was not “able to discuss [his] trial rights and things with” plea counsel. Dkt. # 8-5, Tr. Mot. Hr'g, at 7-8. When asked why he decided to plead guilty, Rios testified:

Because my attorney had told me that I had nothing else to do but to just take that. He just said take that and I was like, well, can you explain what things are going on and he just basically - - sorry about my language, but [plea counsel stated] you are basically fucked.

Dkt. # 8-5, Tr. Mot. Hr'g, at 8.

On cross-examination, Rios testified that he was born and raised in the United States and understood English well enough to communicate with plea counsel but that ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT