N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOSE M IGUEL GUTIER REZ, Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. B R IAN E. W ILLIAM S and STATE OF NEVADA, R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-15704 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-00109-JC M -NJK
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

12, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WATFORD a

nd FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s, a nd FEINER

M AN, ** Distric t Judge
. The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d Jose Gutie rre z ’ s pe tition for a writ of ha be a s c orpus. TheNe va da Supre m e C ourt de te rm ine d tha t Gutie rre z e nte re d his 

# FIL ED APR 12 2018 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 Ga ry Fe ine rm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.Pa ge 2 of 5

ple a knowingly , inte llige ntly , a n d volunta

rily , and it re

je c te d Gutie rre z ’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l c la i m . Those de c isions a re not c ontra

ry to, or ba se d on a

n unre a sona

b l e a pplic ation of, c le arly

e sta blishe d fe de ra l la

w, nor a re the y ba se d on unre a sona

b le fa c tua l de te rm i nations. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). 1. Gutie rre z ’ s first c la i m , tha t his ple a wa s not knowing a

nd volunta

ry , fa ils. The sta te c ourt re a sona

bly de te rm ine d tha

t Gutie rre z ’ s ple a

wa s knowing a

nd volunta ry be c a u se the pe na ltie s disc usse d at the arra ignm e nt we re “ c onsiste nt” with thewritte n a gre e m e nt’ s de sc ription of possible pe na ltie s. Although de fe nse c ounse l m issta

t e d Gutie rre z ’ s e ligibility for probation a s to C ount II a t the
arra ignm e nt, the he aring tra nsc ript indic ate s tha

t Gutie rre z unde rstood he fa c e d a
se nte nc e of at

le a st te n y e a

rs’ im prisonm e nt ba s e d on C ount I. Unde r the te rm s of the w ritte n a g re e m e nt, whic h c l arifie d tha

t proba tion wa s not a

v a ila ble , Gutie rre z fa c e d pre c ise ly

the s am e m inim

um se nte nc e . The tria l c ourt c ould ha ve im pose d a
se nte nc e of le ss tha

n te n y e ars on C ount II a

nd orde re d that se nte n c e to run
c onc urre ntly with them a

ndatory m inim um se nte nc e unde r C ount I. In pra c tic e , suc h a se nte nc e would beindistinguisha b le from the se nte nc e Gutie rre z be lie ve d
wa s a va ila b le to him at

the arra ignm e nt: te n y e ars on C ount I a nd proba tion on C ount II. Ac c ordingly , the sta te c ourt’ s fa c tua l c onc lusion tha t the disc usse d
se nte nc e s we re “ c o n siste nt” is obje c tive ly re a s ona b le
.Pa ge 3 of 5

Gutie rre z ’ s c la i m

tha t his ple a wa s not knowing a

nd volunta

ry be c a use he
wa s prom ise d c onc urre nt se nte nc e s is una va iling a s we ll. The Ne va da Supre m e C ourt re solve d Gutie rre z ’ s volunta rine ss c la im

without e xplic itly

disc ussing this
argum e nt, but a

n inde pe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord supports the sta te c ourt’ s de c ision. Se eHime

s v . Thompson , 336 F.3d 848, 853 (9th C ir. 2003). The pre s e nte nc e inve stiga

tion re p ort re c om

m e nde d c onse c utive se nte nc e s, a nd a transla tor we nt through there port with Gutierre z to e nsure he unde rstood it. At the
se nte nc ing he aring, Gutierre z ’ s c ounse l urge d the c ourt to de viate from tha t
re c o m m e ndation but sta

t e d tha t Gutie rre z ha d be e n

a dvise d tha

t the c ourt ha d disc re tion to im

pose c onse c utive se nte nc e s. And Gutierre z a c k nowle dge d tha

t his
se nte nc e wa s in thetria l judge ’ s ha nds. The se e xc h a

n ge s a dm itte dly

oc c urre d a fte r Gutie rre z e nte re d his guilty ple a . B ut the fa c t tha

t Gutie rre z ne ve r obje c te d to the prospe c t of c onse c utive se nte n c e s c o ntra d ic ts his a sse rtion tha t he be lie ve d

he wa s gua rante e d c onc urre nt se nte nc e s. The re c ord a lso supports the c onc lusion tha

t Gutie rre z unde rstood the
e le m e nts of theoffe nse s to whic h he ple a de d guilty . At thearra ignm e nt, the tria l
c ourt disc usse d

the nature of the c ha

rge s, a nd Gutie rre z a dm itte d

tha t he ha d be e n c a ught in posse ssion of m e tha m phe t am ine in qua

ntitie s tha t viola te d Ne v. R e v. Stat . § 453.3385(1)(b) a

nd (c ). De fe nse c ounse l a lso re pre s e nte d tha t he ha dPa ge 4 of 5

disc usse d the c ha

rge s with Gutierre z at le ngth. Fa c e d with this re c ord, the sta te
c ourt re a sona

bly de te rm ine d t

hat Gutie rre z ’ s ple a

wa s knowing a

nd volunta

ry . Fina lly , we are not pe rsua de d tha t the la c k of a

writte n ple a a gre e m e nt a

t the tim e Gutie rre z ple a de d guilty re nde re d his ple a

involunta

ry . Although sta

te la w re quire s suc h a

writte n ple a

a gre e m e nt, Gutie rre z ha s c ite d no fe de ra l a

uthority im posing a sim ila r re q uire m e nt. The re fore , this a rgum e nt c annot se rve a s a n inde pe nde nt ba sis for ha

b e a s re lie f. S

e e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(a) (spe c ify ing tha t a fe de ra l c o urt c an e nte rta in ha be a s pe titions “ only

on the ground tha

t [the pe titione r] is in c ustody in viola

tion of theC onstitution or la ws or tre atie s of the Unite d Stat e s” ). 2. The sta

te c ourt’ s de n ia l of Gutie rre z ’ s ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e of c ounse l
c la im wa s not a

n unre a s ona

ble a pplic ation of fe d e ra l la

w or ba se d

on unre a sona

ble fa c t ua l de te rm inations. Even a ssum ing de fe nse c ounse l’ s pe rform anc e wa s de fic ie nt, Gutie rre z m

ust show tha

t the re is a

re a sona ble proba bility tha t but for
c ounse l’ s e rrors he would ha ve insiste d on going to tria l. Se eHill v . Loc k

hart , 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). He

ha s not doneso. As e xpla ine d a bove , the re c ord be lie s Gutie rre z ’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t his ple a wa s involunta

ry . And ha d Gutie rre z proc e e de d to tria l, he would ha

ve fa c e d se ve n drug-re l ate d c ha

rge s, four of whic h c ould ha ve re sulte d in lifese nte nc e s with thepossibility of pa role . Gutie rre z ha s notPa ge 5 of 5

e sta blishe d tha

t t he re is a re a sona b le proba bility tha t he would ha

ve ta ke n suc h a risk. AFFIRM E D.