A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e9,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT J OHN D. CL AR K, P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, v. M I K E M U L L I N S, W ar den, R es pondent - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 6153 ( D. C. No. CI V- 0 4 - 7 3 9 - L) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

T h is i s an ap p ea l from a d istri ct co u rtjud g m en t den y ing P eti ti o n erA ppel l antJ ohn D . C l ark habea s r el i ef unde r28 U . S. C . § 2254. W e gr ant ed a cert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i t yt o r evi ew w hetherC l ark’ s gui l typl ea w as know i ng and vol unt aryas t o t he maxi m um pos s i bl e s ent ence s he w as fac i ng. Fort he r eas ons e x p r e s s e d b e l o w, we a ffi r m.- 2- B AC KGROU ND In A p ril 2 0 0 2 , af

ter th re e p rio r fe lo n yc o n v ictio n s, C lar k p lea d e d g u iltyto el even fel on yand t hree m i sdem eano r counts i n thr ee O klahom a cri m i nal cas es:

• C as e N o. C F- 2000- 41 ( pos s es s i ng a contr ol l ed dange r ous s ubs t ance ( C D S) w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e, m ai nt ai ni ng a vehi cl e forkeepi ng or s el l i ng a C D S, dr i vi ng unders us pens i on, and unl aw ful l ypos s es s i ng p ara p h ern ali a); • C as e N o. C F- 2000- 53 ( pos s es s i ng a C D S neara publ i c park, p o sses sing a fir ea rm w h il e c o m m itti n g a felon y , p o sses sing a fir ea rm af ter a fe lon yco n v ict ion , an d u n law fu ll yp o sses sing p ara p h ern ali a); and • C a se N o . C F -2 0 0 1 -5 9 4 (sh o o tin g w ith in ten t to k ill , sh o o tin g w ith i nt entt o ki l l , pos s es s i ng a fi r earm aft erconvi ct i on, unl aw ful l yus i ng a pol i ce r adi o, pos s es s i ng a C D S, and pos s es s i ng a s aw ed- off sh o tgu n ). D ur i ng t he pl ea c ol l oquy , C l ark i ndi cat ed thathe and hi s att orneyhad

“ g o [ n e ] th ro u g h ” a “ P lea o f G u iltyS u m m a ryo f

F a c ts” fo rm . R e lev a n t S tate C o u rt R e c o rd s, E x . 1 a t 5 ; i d. , E x. 7 at1. A m ong othert hi ngs , t he form l i s t ed the cr i m i nal count s , r eci t ed thatt her e w as no pl ea a gr eement , and expl ai ned the con st i tuti on al ri gh t s that C l ark w as gi ving up bypleadi ng gu i l ty . T he fo rm al so cont ai ned a s ect i on fort he “r ange of puni s hm entfort he cr i m e( s ) , ” w hi ch had onl yfourl i nes of bl anks t o be compl et ed s how i ng the mi ni m um and maxi m um te rm s o f im p ri s o n m e n t. Id. , E x. 7 at2. C l ark’ s att orneycompl et ed the s ect i on, appar ent l yat t empt i ng t o fi ti n t he s ent enci ng r anges fort he fi ve fe l oni es and t h r e e mi s d e me a n o r s i n Ca s e No s . CF - 2 0 0 0 - 4 1 a n d CF - 2 0 0 0 - 5 3 . As s h o wn b e l o w, lin e o n e re a d s , “ M in im u m o f 2 0 yrs to a m a x im u m o f a n d /o r a fin e . . . ,”- 3-

w hi ch i s near“C T S I , I I & I I I ” and “ C F 2000- 53. ” Id. Ne a rth e n o t a t i o n “ CF 2 0 0 [0 ]-41 , ” li n e tw o rea d s, “M inim u m o f 2 0 yrs t o a m ax im u m o f 1 yr an d /or a fin e . . . , ” a n d is p re c e d e d b yv a rio u s c o u n t n u m b e rs th a t w e c a n n o t p o sitiv e ly d is c e rn . Id . L ines three an d fo u r read , “M inim u m o f to a m ax im u m o f 1 yr and/ ora fi ne . . . . ” Id . T he fu l l sect i on reads:

Id. I n t he bot t om m ar gi n of the page , C l ark’ s att or neyi dent i fi ed pot ent i al s ent ence s fort he C F- 2001- 594 count s : “C T I & I I - notl es s than 20yr s ”; “C ount III 3 yrs t o li fe ”; “C o u n t I V 4 yrs t o li fe ”; “C o u n t V 6 yrs t o li fe ”; “C o u n t V I 6 y rs t o l i fe. ” Id. O n the fo rm ’s th ir d p ag e, ab o v e C lark’s sign ature , a c h ec k m ark a p p e a r s n e x tt o t h e fo r m’ s l a n g u a g e , “ M ya t t o rn e yc o mp l e t e d th i s fo r m a n d we have gone overt he form and I under s t and i t s cont ent s and agr ee w i th the ans w er s . ” Id. , E x. 7 at3. In re sp o n se to h is at torn ey ’s qu eries d u ri n g the p lea c o ll o q u y , C lark i ndi cat ed thathe had s i gned the form and under s t ood thatther e w as no pl ea- 4-

ag ree m en t and w o u ld b e n o jurytr ial . T h e tri al j u d g e’s o n lyinq u iryb efo re accep t i ng C l ark’ s pl ea w as, “W hat abou ta factual basi s t o sup po rtal l these pl eas ?” Id. , E x. 1 at 6. In r espon se, C l ark’ s at t orneyci t ed the probab l e cause aff i davi t s . T he j udge ac cept ed C l ark’ s pl ea, or der ed a pr es ent enci ng i nves t i gat i on r epor t , and s chedul ed a s ent enci ng dat e. In A u g u st 2 0 0 2 , af

ter re c e iv in g th e re p o rt, w h ich a p p a re n tly “r ecomm end[e d] m axi m um i ncar cer at i on, ” i d. , E x . 2 a t 6 , C lar k m o v e d to w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea. A tt he hea r i ng on the mot i on, C l ark w as r epr es ent ed by new couns el , w ho ar gued thatC l ark “di d notunder s t and thathe coul d not w i t hdr aw hi s pl ea a tanyt i m e, di d notr eal i ze thathe w as gi vi ng up hi s r i ghtt o a j ur y , and al l ot herr i ght s fort hatm at t er , ” Id. , E x . 2 a t 3 , “d id n o t u n d e rsta n d h is r i ghtt o a pr el i m i naryhear i ng, ” i d. a t 5 , an d th a t h is “ m isu n d e rsta n d in g . . . w o u ld r i s e t o t he l evel of coe r ci on, ” i d. at4. C l ark’ s att orneythen as ked hi m , “D oes t hatpr et t ym uch cove ri t ?” Id. at 5. C lark h ad n o thing to ad d . T h e c o u rt s um m ar i l ydeni ed the mot i on and l at ers ent ence d C l ark t o 213 y ear s i n pr i s on. O n ap p ea l t o the O k laho m a C o u rto f C ri m inal A p p ea ls ( O C C A ), C lark ar gued thr ough a new at t or neyt hathe w as notadvi s ed of the cons equenc es of pl eadi ng gui l t y , i ncl udi ng t he puni s hm entr anges . T he O C C A s um m ar i l yr ej ect ed t hatar gum ent . B utt he O C C A di d r ever s e forl ack of evi dence C l ark’ s fel ony c o n v ic tio n in C a s e N o . C F -2 0 0 0 -4 1 fo r u n la w f u lly m a in ta in in g a v e h ic le . C lark v . Ok la h o ma , N o s. C -20 0 2 -11 8 8 , C -20 0 2 -11 9 0 , C -20 0 2 -11 9 1 , sli p o p . at 2-3T h e d istri ct co u rtd id, ho w ev er, ch ara cterize the stat e “ tr ial jud g e’s fail u re 1 t o advi s e [Cl ark] att he pl ea pr ocee di ng of the r ange of puni s hm entforeac h of the fel onyoffe ns es i n C as e N os . C F- 2000- 41 and C F- 2000- 53 . . . [as ] t r oubl i ng. ” A pl t . A pp. , R epor t& R ecomm endat i on at18. W e agr ee. A pl ea c ol l oquys erves as a cons t i tut i onal s hi el d, “pr ot ect [i ng] t he defendantfr om an uni nt el l i gentor i nvol unt arypl ea. ” Mi t chel lv. Uni t ed Stat es , 526 U . S. 314, 322 ( 1999) . H er e, t he col l oquyw as near l ynon- exi s t ent , w i th the s t at e tr i al j udge as ki ng C l ark onl yone ques t i on. N evert hel es s , ourr evi ew of the r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatC l ark’ s pl ea w as n o tu n i n t e l l i g e n to ri n v o l u n t a r y.

- 5- ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. J ul y10, 2003) ( s um m aryopi ni on) . T hus , onl yone fe l ony r emai ned i n C F- 2000- 41: pos s es s i on of a CD S w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e. C l ark t hen fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i n the fe der al di s tr i ct cour t , s t at i ng t hathe w oul d nothave pl eade d gui l tyi f he kne w thathe w as fac i ng m o re th a n tw e n tyy e a rs im p riso n m e n t. T h e d istric t co u rt d e n ied re lief, ru lin g th a t [t ] he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng [C l ark’ s ] entryof hi s pl ea, i ncl udi ng t he fa ctt hatt he cha r ges i n C as e N os . C F- 2000- 41 and C F- 2000- 53 al l egi ng t he offens es w er e comm i t t ed af t erthr ee pr i orfel ony convi ct i ons had bee n pendi ng forovertw o y ear s , that[C l ark] had been arr ai gn ed o n the hab i tual offend er charges i n each of these cas es and had a ppear ed i n courtw i th hi s att orneyon num er ous occa s i ons , and that[C l ark] di d notexpr es s anym i s under s t andi ng conce r ni ng t he maxi m um pos s i bl e puni s hm entforthes e habi tual offe nderchar ges , s how t hat[C l ark] under s t ood the natur e and cons equenc es of hi s pl ea a nd vol unt ar i l yent er ed the pl ea. A pl t . A pp. , R eport& R ecomm endat i on at18. 1 C l ark appea l ed.- 6- D I SC US SI ON I . St andar ds of R evi ew W e r e v i e w t h e d e n i a l o f fe d e r a l h a b e a s r e l i e f

d e n o v o , a p p l y i n g t h e s a me s ta n d a rd s u s e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt . Jacks on v. R ay , 390 F. 3d 1254, 1259 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), cer t . deni ed , 12 6 S . C t . 61 (2005 ). U nd er the A nti -Terr ori sm and Effec t i ve D eath Penal t yA ct( A E D PA ) , a fe der al courtm aynotgr anthabea s reli ef o n a c lai m adjud icated o n the m erit s in state co u rt , u n less the s tat e c o u rt d e c isio n “ w a s c o n tra ryto , o r in v o lv e d a n u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f, cle a rly e s t a b l i s h e d F e d e r a l l a w, a s d e t e r mi n e d b yt h e S u p r e me Co u r t , ” 2 8 U. S . C. § 2254( d) ( 1) , or“w as bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ght of the evi dence pr es ent ed i n t he St at e courtpr ocee di ng, ” id . § 2 2 5 4 (d)(2 ). II . D ue P rocess A gu i l t yplea i s const i tuti on al l yt oler able, provided it“repr esent s a v o lu n tar ya n d in tellig e n t ch o ice a m o n g th e a ltern a tiv e c o u rse s o f a c tio n o p e n to t he defendant . ” Hi l lv. L ockh art , 4 7 4 U . S . 5 2 , 5 6 (19 8 5 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). In a c c e p tin g a g u iltyp lea , a tria l co u rt m u st m a k e su re th a t th e a c c u se d h a s a f u ll under s t andi ng of w hatt he pl ea c onnot es and of i t s cons equenc es , i ncl udi ng the m a x im u m p e n a lty to w h ic h th e a c c u s e d m a yb e e x p o s e d . See B oy k i n v . A la b a ma , 3 9 5 U .S . 2 3 8 , 2 4 3 -4 4 (1 9 6 9 ); Wor then v. Meachum , 8 4 2 F .2 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds , C ol em an v. Thomps on , 501 U . S. 722 ( 1991) . W hi l e an e xhaus t i ve exe ges i s on the mer i t s of pl eadi ng gui l tyi s not- 7-

m a n d a te d , s ee Henders on v. Morgan , 4 2 6 U . S . 6 3 7 , 6 4 7 n . 1 8 (19 7 6 ), “the rec o rd m us taff i r m at i vel ydi s cl os e thata defendantw ho pl eade d gui l tyent er ed hi s pl ea under s t andi ngl yand vol unt ar i l y , ” B r ady v. Uni t ed Stat es , 3 9 7 U .S . 7 4 2 , 7 4 7 n .4 ( 1 9 7 0 ) . “ Wh e t h e ra p l e a i s v o l u n t a ryi s a q u e s t i o n o f fe d e r a l [ d u e p r o c e s s ] l a w, bu tt his l egal conclusi on res t s on fa ctual fi nd i ng s and inferences from tho se fi ndi ngs . ” F i elds v. G i bs on , 2 7 7 F . 3 d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 1 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). W e conc l ude thatt he O C C A nei thercontr avene d orunr eas onabl yappl i ed S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t n o r e m p lo y e d a n u n re a so n a b le fa c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n in r ej ect i ng C l ark’ s pl ea c hal l enge. C l ark’ s fai l ur e t o ar gue dur i ng the pl ea- w i t hdr aw al hear i ng t hathe w as unaw ar e of the maxi m um pos s i bl e s ent ence s s ugges t s aw ar enes s of a s ubs t ant i al amount of pr i s on t i m e. I ndeed, C l ark had ear l i ers i gned the pl ea for m , admi t t i ng thathe under s t ood i t s cont ent s . A tthe veryl eas t , t he form cl ear l ys how s thati n C as e N o. C F- 2001- 594, C l ark w as fac i ng fourfel onycount s , eac h carry i ng a pos s i bl e l i fe s ent ence , and tw o fel ony c o u n ts fo r w h ich th e m in im u m se n ten c e s w o u ld e a c h b e tw e n tyy e a rs. T h u s, h is a ss e rtio n th a t h e w o u ld n o t h a v e p lea d e d g u iltyh a d h e k n o w n th a t h e c o u ld recei ve m ore than t w entyy ears i s speci ou s. Fur t herm or e, l i ne one i n t he r ange- of- puni s hm ents ect i on coul d be r ead a s i ndi cat i ng a mi ni m um of tw entyy ear s eac h forfel onycount s one, tw o, and thr ee i n C as e N o. C F- 2000- 53, w hi ch ar e the s ent ence s C l ark ul t i m at el yr ece i ved i n t hat ca se. T h e a b sen ce o f a m ax im u m term o n li n e o n e re flec ts th at O k laho m a’sSect i on 51. 1( B ) w as amended i n 2001 t o s peci fya maxi m um t erm of l i fe 2 im p riso n m e n t.

- 8- h a b itu a l o ffe n d e r s ta tu te re c ite d n o m a x im u m p e n a lty, s ee O k la . S ta t. tit. 2 1 , § 51. 1( B ) ( Supp. 1999) ( “Ever yper s on w ho, havi ng been tw i ce c onvi ct ed of fel ony offe ns es , comm i t s a thi r d, ort her eaf t er , fel onyoffe ns es . . . s hal l be puni s hed by i m pr i s onm enti n t he St at e Peni t ent i aryfora t erm of notl es s than tw enty( 20) y e a rs.” ). A s fo r C a se N o . C F -2 0 0 0 -4 1 , li n e tw o ’s “ M in im u m o f 2 0 yrs” w o u ld 2 a c c u ra telyre flec t th e se n ten c e C lar k re c e iv e d o n th e o n lyv iab le fe lo n yc o u n t in t hatcas e. L i ne tw o’ s fur t hernot at i on of “t o a maxi m um of 1yr ” i ndi cat es t he m axi m um pos s i bl e s ent ence forone of the mi s demeanorcount s . N othi ng i n the r ange- of- puni s hm ents ect i on s how s t hatC l ark w as notappr i s ed of the s ent ence s he ul t i m at el yr ece i ved. A nd gi ven hi s s i l ence att he pl ea- w i thdr aw al hear i ng abouts ent enci ng r anges , w e conc l ude thatC l ark’ s gui l typl ea w as know i ng and v o l u n t a r yfo rp u rp o s e s o f AE DP A. T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt is A F F IR M E D . C lar k ’s m o tio n to pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s i s gr ant ed. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge