Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06427/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06427-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
Terry Lewis
Appellant
Mike Parsons
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED S':l'ATBS COUR'l' OF APPEALS PILED 

POR THE 'l'Elffll CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

TERRY LEWIS, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

MIKE PARSONS, Warden; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, State of 

Oklahoma, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MAY 7- 1991 

llOBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-6427 

(D. C. No. CIV-89-834-A) 

( W. D • Okla • ) 

ORDER ARD JUDGIIBB'l'* 

Before ARDBRSOII, TACBA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Lewis, a state prisoner, appeals the denial of relief 

under his petition for habeas. 

• This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-6427 Document: 010110106493 Date Filed: 05/07/1991 Page: 1 
) 

We grant Mr. Lewis's motion for a certificate of probable 

cause. 

In 1988 Mr. Lewis was charged in Oklahoma state 

the felony offense of unlawful possession of a 

substance. For purposes of enhancing punishment, 

court with 

controlled 

the state 

alleged Mr. Lewis had been convicted of four prior felonies, two 

of which were drug related. 

A plea agreement was made whereby Mr. Lewis would plead 

guilty and the state would strike three of the four prior 

convictions, leaving Mr. Lewis to face enhancement for one prior 

drug-related conviction. The state agreed it would recommend Mr. 

Lewis receive a ten-year sentence. The state court followed this 

recommendation and imposed a ten-year sentence. 

Mr. Lewis now asserts his guilty plea was not knowingly and 

voluntarily entered as he was misadvised as to both the minimum 

and maximum punishment. 

It appears from Mr. Lewis's written petition to enter a plea 

of guilty and from the transcript of the sentencing proceeding 

that Mr. Lewis believed the possible sentence was not less than 

ten years nor more than life. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6427 Document: 010110106493 Date Filed: 05/07/1991 Page: 2 
As originally charged, Mr. Lewis faced a sentence of not less 

than twenty years nor more than life. After the three predicate 

prior felony convictions were omitted from consideration, Mr. 

Lewis faced a possible sentence of not less than four years nor 

more than twenty years. 

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, in denying postconviction relief to Mr. Lewis, ma~e a finding of fact that Mr. 

Lewis knew what the state's recommendation would be and Mr. Lewis 

agreed. It is thus clear Mr. Lewis entered into a plea agreement 

knowing he would receive the ten-year sentence and knowing that 

without this plea agreement he was facing a minimum sentence of 

twenty years. 

The trial court here denied Mr. Lewis relief stating: 

Some courts have held that when a state court 

guilty plea is alleged to be constitutionally invalid 

because the defendant was not told or was misinformed 

about sentencing information requisite to an informed 

plea, the issue is "whether the defendant was aware of 

actual sentencing possibilities, and, if not, whether 

accurate information would have made any difference in 

his decision to enter a plea." Hunter v. Fogg, 616 F.2d 

55, 58 (2d Cir. 1980). See also, Rouse v. Foster, 672 

F.2d [649, 651 (8th Cir. 1982)]. It cannot be said that 

having the correct information would have made any 

difference to the Petitioner under the facts now before 

the Court, since, as noted, the Petitioner faced a 

minunum sentence of twenty years until the plea 

agreement was reached. In determining the validity of a 

guilty plea, the standard remains whether the plea 

represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the 

alternative courses open to the Petitioner. North 

Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970). Certainly, 

Petitioner's plea represented an intelligent choice 

among the alternatives he faced. Under the totality of 

the circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that 

the Petitioner was adequately advised of the practical 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6427 Document: 010110106493 Date Filed: 05/07/1991 Page: 3 
range of punishment he faced, and his plea was 

intelligently and voluntarily entered. 

(Order of District court dated December 4, 1989, pp. 5-6.) 

A plea is not voluntary unless the defendant knows the direct 

consequences of his decision particularly including the maximum 

penalty to which he was exposed. In the case before us, Mr. Lewis 

knew the consequences of his plea as under Oklahoma law, if the 

trial court did not follow the agreed ten-year reconnnendation, Mr. 

Lewis had an absolute right to withdraw his guilty plea. King v. 

State, 553 P.2d 529, 535-36 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976). We therefore 

agree with the district court. 

Mr. Lewis next argues .the district court erred by denying him 

an evidentiary hearing. A habeas petitioner is not entitled to an 

evidentiary hearing if the matter can be decided upon the record. 

Cartwright v. Maynard, 802 F.2d 1203, 1216 (10th Cir. 1986). In 

the case before us, the district court had the full and complete 

state record, which was more than ample to resolve the issues 

raised. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6427 Document: 010110106493 Date Filed: 05/07/1991 Page: 4