Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02248/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02248-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert C. Huffman
Appellant
Robert J. Tansey
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ROBERT C. HUFFMAN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

APR 2 4 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-2248 

(D.C. No. 88-1392-SC) 

(Dist. of New Mexico) 

ROBERT J. TANSEY, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and BALDOCK 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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Robert Huffman brought this prose petition for habeas corpus 

relief under 28 u.s.c. S 2254(1982), seeking to set aside a plea 

bargain under which he pled guilty to one count of armed robbery 

in exchange for the state prosecutor's agreement, inter alia, not 

*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 cqllateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2248 Document: 01019972029 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 1 
to file habitual offender proceedings against him. Huffman 

contends that the New Mexico habitual offender statutes impose a 

mandatory nondiscretionary duty upon a prosecutor to file habitual 

offender proceedings when circumstances warrant it. See N.M. 

Stat. Ann. SS 31-18-17 to -20 (S~pp. 1987). Although the State 

has not instituted habitual offender proceedings against Huffman, 

he argues that because he relied on the State's unfulfillable 

promise when he pled guilty, his rights under the Fifth Amendment 

were violated. Huffman appears to argue both that his plea was 

not voluntary and that enforcing it would be fundamentally unfair . 

A plea is involuntary and therefore invalid when it is 

induced by misrepresentations. See Brady v. United States, 397 

U.S. 742, 755 (1970). Here no misrepresentation was ~ade .• The 

State promised that it would not charge Huffman under the habitual 

offender statute and it has not done so. 

Enforcement of a voluntary plea agreement is fundamentally 

unfair if the State does not keep its bargain. See Santobello v. 

New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971). Huffman argues that even though 

the State has not yet breached the agreement, the State is 

precluded from keeping it because the mandatory duty imposed by 

the habitual offender statute renders the State's promise 

unfulfillable. Huffman's complaint is premature. Assuming that 

the prosecutor has no discretion in this matter and that habitual 

offender proceedings are in the future brought against Huffman, 

-2-

0 

Appellate Case: 89-2248 Document: 01019972029 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 2 
Huffman can then file a habeas action. "[W]here a defendant 

pleads guilty because he reasonably relies on promises by the 

prosecutor which are in fact unfulfillable, he has a right to have 

those promises fulfilled." Palermo v. Warden, 545 F.2d 286, 296 

(2d Cir. 1976); see also Plaster v. United States, 720 F.2d 340, 

354 (4th Cir. 1983)("promises made during plea bargaining by 

government agents are not ultra vires for lack of authority;" 

promises outside agent's authority "might--even if 

unfulfillable--be enforced if made during plea bargaining") . 

Thus, upon the State's nonperformance of an unfulfillable promise, 

courts have afforded relief either by requiring fulfillment of the 

promise, see Palermo, 545 F.2d at 296-97, or by allowing 

withdrawal of the plea, see United States v. Cook, 668 F.2d 317, 

321 (7th Cir. 1982). But unless or until the State breaches the 

agreement, enforcement of the bargain is not unfair. Accordingly, 

we conclude that Huffman has failed to state a claim for habeas 

relief. 

Huffman's request for a certificate of probable cause is 

granted. The district court's dismissal of the petition is 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2248 Document: 01019972029 Date Filed: 04/24/1990 Page: 3