N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT SAUL GAR C IA C UEVAS,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. JAM ES D. HART LEY, W a rde n, Ave na l State Prison, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 12-55807 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-09775-VAP-M LG
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia V irginia A. Phillips, C hie f Judge , Pre s iding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 12, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI a

nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s, a

nd B RE Y ER , ** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r Sa

ul Ga rc ia C u e va s a ppe a l s the de nia l of his pe tition for a writ of ha be a s c orpus. W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED JAN 10 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.1. Afte r an e xte nde d c rim e spre e , C ue va s fa c e d up to two c o nse c utive life

se nte nc e s plus a

t le a st a nothe r 37 y e ars in prison. He ple a de d guilty to re duc e d
c ha rge s, inc luding 27 c ounts of robbery , tha t e xpose d him

to a m axim um se nte nc e of 37 y e a rs a nd e i ght m onths. W

he n a ll wa s sa i d a

nd done , the sta

te c ourt
se nte nc e d C ue va s to 35 y e ars a n d e ight m onths. As it turns out, e ight of therobbe ry c ounts we re duplic ative unde r state la w. C ue va s a rgue s tha t his la wy e r wa s c onstitutiona

lly ine ffe c tive unde r Stric k

land v
. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984), for not a dvising him

of thosec ounts a

t the ple a sta ge or c ha lle nging the m unde r C a lifornia

Pe na l C ode se c t ion 654 a t se nte nc ing. 1 To pre va il on a Stric k

land c la im , C ue va s m

ust show (1) tha

t c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt a

nd (2) tha t the de fic i e nt pe rform a

nc e re sulte d

in pre judic e . S e e Stric k land, 466 U.S. a

t 687. W e re vie w whe the r the sta te c ourt’ s re

je c t ion of his
c la im wa s unre a sona

ble . 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1). 2. C o unse l’ s a

ppa re nt fa ilure to a dvise C ue va s a b out theduplic ative c ounts a t the p le a sta ge wa s de fic ie nt be c a

use it “ im pinge d on [C ue va s ] ’ s a

bility to e nte r an

1 “ An a c t or om ission tha t is punisha

b le in diffe re nt wa

y s by diffe re nt provisions of la

w sha ll be punishe d unde r the provision tha t provide s for the longe s t pote ntia l te rm

of im p risonm e nt, but in no c a se sha ll the a c t or om ission be punishe d unde r m ore tha

n one provision. An ac quitta l or c onvic tion a n d se nte nc e unde r any one ba rs a prose c ution for thesa m e a c t or om ission under any othe r.” C a l. Pe na l C ode § 654(a ).
2inte llige nt, knowing a nd volunta

ry ple a of guilty ,” Lambe rt v . Blodge t t , 393 F.3d 943, 979 (9th C ir. 2004). B ut it wa s not pre judic ia l. Ha d C ue v a s gone to tria l, he would ha ve fa c e d two c onse c utive life se nte nc e s plus a t le a st a nothe r 37 y e a

rs in prison. W e se e no “ re a sona b le proba bility tha t, but for c ounse l’ s e rror[] ,” he would have ta ke n suc h a

risk. Hill v . Loc k

hart , 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). Ac c ordingly , the sta te c o urt re a sona

bly re j e c te d C ue va s’ s c la im

for ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e of c ounse l
at the ple a

sta ge . 3. On to se nte nc ing. As a n initial m atte r, Daire

v . Lattimore , 812 F.3d 766 (9th C ir. 2016) (e n ba

nc ) (pe r c uriam ), he ld tha t Glov e r v . Unite d

State s , 531 U.S. 198 (2001), c le arly e s ta

blishe d tha

t Stric k land a pplie s to non-c a

pita l se nte nc ing proc e e dings, so we m ay

re a c h the m e rits. Just the sam e , C ue va s is out of luc k. Unde r C a lifornia

la w, c ounse l c ould ha

ve re a sona

bly c onc lude d

tha t
c ha lle nging theduplic ative c ounts a t se nte nc ing wa s at be st a non-sta rte r or, at worst, ta nta m ount to “ atta c king theva lidity ” of the ple a , Pe ople v . C ue v a s , 187 P.3d 30, 35 (C a l. 2008). A de fe nda nt who a gre e s to a “ spe c ifie d prison term ” and is

“ se nte nc e d to tha

t te rm or a shorte r one ” the re b y

“ a ba ndons a ny c la im tha t a
c om pone nt of the se nte nc e viola te s se c tion 654’ s prohibition of double punishm e nt, unle ss tha t c l a im is a sse rte d at the tim e the a gre e m e nt is re c ite d on there c ord.” C a l. R ule of C ourt 4.412(b). A “ spe c ifie d prison term ” ha s be e n re a d to inc lude an a gre e d-upon se nte nc e se t “ at or be low” a m axim um te rm , le st de fe nda

nts be a ble “ to 3unila

te ra lly re ne g e on the a g re e m e nt tha t wa s ne gotia

te d in good faith with the prose c utor a

nd a c c e pte d by

the tria l c ourt.” Pe oplev . J one s , 158 C a l. R

p tr. 3d 786, 794-95 (C t. App. 2013). Here , the re c ord “ c le arly re fle c t s” tha

t C ue va s “ a g re e d to a
m axim um possiblese nte n c e of 37 y e ars e ight m onths,” C ue v a s , 187 P.3d a

t 35. What is m ore , c ha l le nging duplic ative c ounts in a ple a a gre e m e nt a fte r it ha s be e n a c c e pte d is “ in substa nc e a c ha lle nge to theple a ’ s va lidity ” unde r C a lifornia la w. Pe oplev . She lton , 125 P.3d 290, 296 (C a l. 2006); ac c ord C ue v as , 187 P.3d
at 35; Pe oplev . Panizzon , 913 P.2d 1061, 1067 (C a l. 1996). It wa s re a sona ble not to ra ise a c ha lle nge tha

t w o uld ha

ve je o pa rdiz e d the a gre e m e nt. Ac c ordingly , the sta te c o urt re a sona

bly re j e c te d C ue va s’ s c la im

for ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e of c ounse l
at se nte nc ing. 4. On dire c t a

p pe a l , the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt le ft no doubt tha t – unde r C a lifornia la w – C ue va s “ re c e ive d wha t he ne gotia

te d a nd a gre e d to unde r the ple a a gre e m e nt, a

nd he m ust a bide by the te rm s of the a gre e m e nt.” C ue v as , 187 P.3d
at 37. And on revie w of his sta te ha be a s pe tition, it sa

w nothing tha

t wa rrante d
c ha nging tha t sta te of a ffa i rs. In light of the a bove , we se e nothing unre a s ona ble
a bout tha t de c ision. Se e28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1); Harrington v. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 100 (2011) (a c c o rding AEDPA de fe re nc e to sum m ary orde rs). AFFIRM E D
.
4