Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-14-35897/USCOURTS-ca9-14-35897-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vidal Carrillo-Carrillo
Appellant
Rick Coursey
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VIDAL CARRILLO-CARRILLO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

RICK COURSEY, Superintendent,

EOCI,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14-35897

D.C. No.

2:13-cv-01450-SI

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 10, 2016

Portland, Oregon

Filed May 24, 2016

Before: Raymond C. Fisher, Marsha S. Berzon,

and Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Watford

 Case: 14-35897, 05/24/2016, ID: 9988119, DktEntry: 30-1, Page 1 of 13
2 CARILLO-CARILLO V. COURSEY

SUMMARY*

Habeas Corpus

Reversing the district court’s judgment dismissingOregon

state prisoner Vidal Carrillo-Carrillo’s federal habeas corpus

petition, the panel held that Carrillo-Carrillo fairly presented

to the Oregon courts his claims that trial counsel rendered

ineffective assistance by unduly pressuring him into

accepting a no contest plea and that his decision to enter the

plea and waive his right to a jury trial was not knowingly and

voluntarily made.

The panel explained that Carrillo-Carrillo fairlypresented

his claims, where he (1) attached his petition for postconviction relief to the Balfour brief filed by counsel on his

behalf in the Oregon Court of Appeals, (2) expressly

incorporated by reference his PCR petition into Section B of

the Balfour brief, and (3) filed in the Oregon Supreme Court

a petition for review that incorporated by reference Section B

of his Balfour brief.

COUNSEL

Anthony D. Bornstein (argued), Assistant Federal Public

Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland,

Oregon, for Petitioner-Appellant.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 14-35897, 05/24/2016, ID: 9988119, DktEntry: 30-1, Page 2 of 13
CARILLO-CARILLO V. COURSEY 3

Rolf Christen Moan (argued), Senior Assistant Attorney

General, Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem,

Oregon, for Respondent-Appellee.

OPINION

WATFORD, Circuit Judge:

Vidal Carrillo-Carrillo is an Oregon state prisoner who

filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. 

The district court dismissed the petition with prejudice after

concluding that Carrillo-Carrillo had not fairly presented his

claims to the Oregon state courts first, as he was required to

do. We disagree with that conclusion. In our view, CarrilloCarrillo gave the Oregon courts a fair opportunity to rule on

his claims, and those claims are now properly before the

district court for adjudication on the merits.

I

Carrillo-Carrillo pleaded no contest to one count of

racketeering in Oregon state court and was sentenced to 15

years in prison. He did not pursue a direct appeal but, with

the assistance of new counsel, he filed a timely petition for

post-conviction relief (PCR) in state court. Carrillo-Carrillo

asserted that he had been denied effective assistance of

counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendments. In support of that claim, he alleged that his

trial counsel “failed to provide legal advice and services

which met the minimum standards required of a criminal

defense attorney.” In particular, Carrillo-Carrillo alleged that

counsel had unduly pressured him into pleading no contest,

 Case: 14-35897, 05/24/2016, ID: 9988119, DktEntry: 30-1, Page 3 of 13
4 CARILLO-CARILLO V. COURSEY

and that as a result he did not enter his plea knowingly and

voluntarily.

The PCR court held an evidentiary hearing on CarrilloCarrillo’s claim. At the hearing, Carrillo-Carrillo testified

that he felt pressured into accepting the plea because, on the

day set for trial, the judge denied his request to postpone the

trial so that he could fire his current lawyer and retain new

counsel. The prosecution, moreover, had recently filed new

charges that threatened to land him in prison for 30 years and

deprive him of credit for the seven months he had already

served. The trial judge strongly suggested that he would be

willing to impose a sentence of just 15 years, but only if

Carrillo-Carrillo accepted the prosecution’s plea offer before

trial commenced.

At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the PCR

court rejected Carrillo-Carrillo’s ineffective assistance of

counsel claim. The court found that Carrillo-Carrillo

“probably did feel some pressure” to accept the plea offer, but

not due to any deficiency in the representation provided by

his trial counsel. The court concluded that Carrillo-Carrillo

had not shown deficient performance or prejudice and that his

plea had been knowingly and voluntarily made.

Carrillo-Carrillo appealed to the Oregon Court of

Appeals. His lawyer filed what is known in Oregon as a

Balfour brief. In State v. Balfour, 814 P.2d 1069, 1078–80

(Or. 1991), the Oregon Supreme Court prescribed the

procedures appointed counsel should follow when a criminal

defendant seeks to pursue an appeal that counsel believes has

no merit. The procedures prescribed in Balfour are now

codified in Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure (ORAP)

5.90. We provide a brief summary of those procedures

 Case: 14-35897, 05/24/2016, ID: 9988119, DktEntry: 30-1, Page 4 of 13
CARILLO-CARILLO V. COURSEY 5

because they become relevant when assessing the validity of

the State’s arguments in this appeal.

Under Rule 5.90, counsel must file an opening brief on

the defendant’s behalf divided into two sections, labeled

Section A and Section B. In Section A, counsel must provide

basic background information about the case and a statement

that counsel has thoroughly reviewed the record but has been

unable to identify any meritorious issues for appeal. ORAP

5.90(1)(a). Counsel signs only Section A of the brief. 

Section B is entirely the defendant’s work product. The rule

states that Section B “may contain any claim of error that the

client wishes to assert,” and that “[t]he client shall attempt to

state the claim and any argument in support of the claim as

nearly as practicable in proper appellate brief form.” ORAP

5.90(1)(b)(i).

Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 5.45 prescribes the

proper appellate brief form for presenting claims of error. 

The rule provides that “[e]ach assignment of error shall be

separatelystated under a numbered heading.” ORAP 5.45(2). 

Under that separately numbered heading, the appellant must

identify the ruling being challenged, state where in the record

the challenge was preserved below, identify the applicable

standard of review, and set forth the arguments supporting the

claim of error. ORAP 5.45(4)–(6) & App. 5.45, illus. 1. If

the brief asserts multiple claims of error, the same

information must be set forth under a separately numbered

heading for each claim. ORAP 5.45(2).

Carrillo-Carrillo’s appellate counsel complied with Rule

5.90. He prepared Section A of the Balfour brief, and he

included Section B as prepared by Carrillo-Carrillo. 

However, Carrillo-Carrillo’s Section B did not comply with

 Case: 14-35897, 05/24/2016, ID: 9988119, DktEntry: 30-1, Page 5 of 13
6 CARILLO-CARILLO V. COURSEY

the formatting requirements of Rule 5.45. Under the heading

“Assignment of Errors,” Carrillo-Carrillo stated the

following:

Therefore, counsel was ineffective in the

following ways

1) Failed to interview and subpoena alibi

witnesses.

2) Failed to seek and prepare expert

witnesses and testimony.

3) Failed to investigate all prosecution

witnesses.

4) Failed to investigate character

witnesses that could have helped to

discredit these allegations.

5) Failed to investigate possible

corroborating witnesses.

6) Failed to obtain evidence in a timely

manner.

7) Failed to go over the case and

properly prepare defendant to testify.

8) Failure to know the law.

Just below that, under the heading “Argument,” CarrilloCarrillo stated: “Appellant sets forth his claims contained in

the petition for post-conviction relief and the memorandum

 Case: 14-35897, 05/24/2016, ID: 9988119, DktEntry: 30-1, Page 6 of 13
CARILLO-CARILLO V. COURSEY 7

of law that is submitted on the face of the record.” He

attached a copy of his PCR petition to Section B of the

Balfour brief.

In its answering brief, the State argued that the lone claim

of error asserted under the heading “Assignment of Errors”

was an entirely new claim concerning trial counsel’s

inadequate investigation of the case. Because that claim had

not been litigated below, the State argued that it could not

provide a basis for reversing the lower court’s judgment. The

State further argued that Carrillo-Carrillo had waived any

other grounds for reversal by not asserting them as separate

assignments of error.

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of

Carrillo-Carrillo’s PCR petition in a summary order stating

“affirmed without opinion.”

Carrillo-Carrillo petitioned the Oregon SupremeCourtfor

review. The only substantive passage of the petition stated: 

“Petitioner hereby incorporates by reference into this petition

the Section Bfiled with the Court of Appeals, to present these

issues for review by this court and to preserve these issues for

federal review.” The Oregon Supreme Court summarily

denied the petition.

Carrillo-Carrillo then filed a pro se petition for habeas

corpus relief in federal court, using the pre-printed form

supplied by the District Court for the District of Oregon. 

Under the heading “Grounds for Relief,” Carrillo-Carrillo

again asserted that he had been denied effective assistance of

counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendments. In the space provided for supporting facts,

Carrillo-Carrillo alleged three things: (1) trial counsel unduly

 Case: 14-35897, 05/24/2016, ID: 9988119, DktEntry: 30-1, Page 7 of 13
8 CARILLO-CARILLO V. COURSEY

pressured him into accepting the no contest plea; (2) his

decision to enter the plea and waive his right to a jury trial

was not knowingly and voluntarily made; and (3) trial

counsel failed to perform the same eight tasks listed under

“Assignment of Errors” in Section B of his Balfour brief,

which Carrillo-Carrillo re-alleged essentially verbatim in his

federal habeas petition.

The district court dismissed Carrillo-Carrillo’s petition

with prejudice. The court construed each of the three

“supporting facts” allegations as raising a distinct claim for

relief and concluded that none of those claims had been fairly

presented to the Oregon state courts. With respect to the first

two claims, the district court held that they had been fairly

presented to the state PCR court but not to the Oregon Court

of Appeals or the Oregon Supreme Court. In the district

court’s view, Carrillo-Carrillo had “abandoned these claims

on appeal.” As for the third claim, the district court held that

because the allegations concerning trial counsel’s failure to

investigate the case and prepare for trial did not appear in the

PCR petition and were not raised during the evidentiary

hearing, Carrillo-Carrillo had failed to present the claim in a

posture in which the Oregon appellate courts could decide the

merits. These rulings meant that all three of CarrilloCarrillo’s claimswere procedurallydefaulted, thus precluding

federal habeas relief absent a showing of cause and prejudice

or a fundamental miscarriage of justice, which CarrilloCarrillo did not attempt to make. The district court issued a

certificate of appealability on the following issue: “whether

petitioner’s PCR appellate claims are properly before this

court for adjudication on the merits.”

 Case: 14-35897, 05/24/2016, ID: 9988119, DktEntry: 30-1, Page 8 of 13
CARILLO-CARILLO V. COURSEY 9

II

To obtain federal habeas relief, Carrillo-Carrillo must

show that he has exhausted the remedies available in state

court by fairly presenting his claims to each level of Oregon’s

court system—the PCR court, the Oregon Court of Appeals,

and the Oregon Supreme Court. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S.

27, 29 (2004). He concedes that if he has not already

complied with this requirement it is too late to do so now,

which would mean his claims are procedurally defaulted. 

Carrillo-Carrillo’s argument for reversal is that he did fairly

present his claims to the Oregon state courts and that the

district court erred in concluding otherwise. We think

Carrillo-Carrillo is right.

No one disputes that Carrillo-Carrillo fairly presented to

the state PCR court his first two claims—that trial counsel

rendered ineffective assistance by unduly pressuring him into

accepting the no contest plea, and that his decision to enter

the plea and waive his right to a jury trial was not knowingly

and voluntarilymade. The main question is whether CarrilloCarrillo fairly presented those claims to Oregon’s appellate

courts. In our view the answer is yes, given the Oregon

Supreme Court’s decision in Farmer v. Baldwin, 205 P.3d

871 (Or. 2009), and our subsequent decision in the same case,

Farmer v. Baldwin, 563 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2009).

In Farmer, as here, a petitioner seeking federal habeas

relief presented his claims to the Oregon Court of Appeals in

a Balfour brief. The petitioner’s counsel prepared Section A

of the brief, but instead of drafting his own Section B, the

petitioner simply attached a copy of the PCR petition he had

filed in the lower court. By way of explanation, his attorney

stated in Section A: “Petitioner has decided to attach a copy

 Case: 14-35897, 05/24/2016, ID: 9988119, DktEntry: 30-1, Page 9 of 13
10 CARILLO-CARILLO V. COURSEY

of his post conviction petition, in the hopes of at least

preserving all the issues presented therein.” Farmer,

205 P.3d at 873. The Balfour brief contained no Section B at

all. In the Oregon Supreme Court, the petitioner’s petition for

review did nothing more than incorporate by reference his

PCR petition and the Balfour brief he had filed in the Court

of Appeals. The petitioner did not attach a copy of either

document to the petition for review. Id.

Faced with that record, our court was uncertain whether

the petitioner had fairly presented his claims to the Oregon

Supreme Court. We certified to the Oregon Supreme Court

the question whether the petitioner had properly raised his

claims before that court. 563 F.3d at 1043–44. The Oregon

Supreme Court answered our question in the affirmative: 

“Under ORAP 5.90, a petitioner may present a question of

law to this court by means of an attachment to a Balfour brief

filed in the Court of Appeals, when the attachment serves as

section B of said brief, and the petitioner incorporates that

same brief by reference into his petition for review.” Farmer,

205 P.3d at 878. Upon receiving that answer, we held that

the petitioner had fairly presented his claims to the Oregon

Supreme Court. We reversed the district court’s dismissal of

the petitioner’s federal habeas petition and remanded for

consideration of his claims on the merits. 563 F.3d at 1044.

The Farmer decisions compel us to reverse the district

court’s judgment in this case as well. First, the Oregon

Supreme Court held that a petitioner can properly present his

claims to the Court of Appeals by attaching a copy of his

PCR petition to the Balfour brief, even if the brief does not

include Section B. Carrillo-Carrillo did more than that here. 

He not only attached a copy of his PCR petition to the

Balfour brief, he also submitted Section B, where he

 Case: 14-35897, 05/24/2016, ID: 9988119, DktEntry: 30-1, Page 10 of 13
CARILLO-CARILLO V. COURSEY 11

expressly incorporated his PCR petition by reference. So

both claims raised in the PCR petition were properly

presented to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Second, CarrilloCarrillo properly presented his claims to the Oregon Supreme

Court by filing a petition for review that incorporated by

reference Section B of his Balfour brief. We know this

presentation was sufficient because the petitioner in Farmer

did the same thing. Finally, our decision in Farmer

establishes that, by taking these actions, Carrillo-Carrillo

satisfied the fair presentation requirement for purposes of

exhausting the remedies available in state court.

The State’s primary contention is that this case differs

from Farmer because, unlike the petitioner in Farmer,

Carrillo-Carrillo actually filed Section B of the Balfour brief. 

Accordingto the State, because Carrillo-Carrillo filed Section

B, he properly raised on appeal only the claim included under

the heading “Assignment of Errors,” even though he

elsewhere incorporated by reference his entire PCR petition. 

We do not agree. The State may be right that, as a technical

matter, Carrillo-Carrillo failed to comply with Rule 5.45’s

requirement that “[e]ach assignment of error shall be

separatelystated under a numbered heading.” ORAP 5.45(2). 

But the Oregon Supreme Court held in Farmer that pro se

litigants are entitled to leeway on matters of form when filing

Section B of a Balfour brief. The court stressed that Rule

5.90 “does not require exact compliance with the forms and

rules of appellate briefing that lawyers observe; rather, it

requires that a litigant attempt to present his or her claims in

proper appellate brief form, as nearly as practicable.” 

Farmer, 205 P.3d at 877. Carrillo-Carrillo attempted to

present his claims in proper form by filing Section B and

expressly incorporating his PCR petition by reference under

the heading “Argument.” That he may have done this under

 Case: 14-35897, 05/24/2016, ID: 9988119, DktEntry: 30-1, Page 11 of 13
12 CARILLO-CARILLO V. COURSEY

the wrong heading is surely a less serious error than the one

found excusable in Farmer, where the petitioner did not

bother to file Section B of the brief at all.

Because we hold that Carrillo-Carrillo fairlypresented his

first two claims to the Oregon appellate courts, we presume

that those courts denied relief on the merits. See Harrington

v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 99 (2011); Smith v. Oregon Board of

Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 736 F.3d 857, 860–62

(9th Cir. 2013). Both the Oregon Court of Appeals and the

Oregon SupremeCourtsummarilyrejected Carrillo-Carrillo’s

claims without explanation. So, to determine the basis for

those decisions, we must look to the last reasoned state court

decision, which here was the decision of the state PCR court. 

See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803–04 (1991). That

court rejected Carrillo-Carrillo’s claims solely on the merits,

and nothing in the record suggests that the Oregon appellate

courts rested their decisions on a different ground.

That leaves us with what the district court regarded as

Carrillo-Carrillo’s third claim for relief—the set of

allegations concerning trial counsel’s failure to investigate the

case and adequately prepare for trial. The State argues that

Carrillo-Carrillo did not fairly present this “claim” to the state

PCR court because he made the allegations concerning trial

counsel’s lack of investigation and preparation for the first

time in his Balfour brief. While that is true, we do not view

these allegations as stating a separate and distinct claim for

relief. They appear designed instead to flesh out why

Carrillo-Carrillo contends he felt pressured into accepting the

no contest plea. He alleges that he had no choice but to

accept the plea in part because his lawyer had not adequately

prepared for trial and the judge had denied his day-of-trial

request for a postponement so that he could retain new

 Case: 14-35897, 05/24/2016, ID: 9988119, DktEntry: 30-1, Page 12 of 13
CARILLO-CARILLO V. COURSEY 13

counsel. Carrillo-Carrillo’s allegations concerning trial

counsel’s inadequate investigation and preparation are best

construed as an attempt to buttress his first claim for

relief—that counsel rendered ineffective assistance byunduly

pressuring him into accepting the no contest plea.

* * *

We reverse the district court’s judgment dismissing

Carrillo-Carrillo’s federal habeas petition. Carrillo-Carrillo

fairly presented to the Oregon courts his claims that trial

counsel rendered ineffective assistance by unduly pressuring

him into accepting the no contest plea, and that his decision

to enter the plea and waive his right to a jury trial was not

knowingly and voluntarily made.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

 Case: 14-35897, 05/24/2016, ID: 9988119, DktEntry: 30-1, Page 13 of 13