The Honor able Da vid D. Dowd, Jr., Senior U nited States District J udg e for the Northe rn * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0552n.06 Filed: August 8, 2007 No. 06-1184 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT J OSEPH ASHBAUG H, Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt,

v. DAVI D GUND Y, Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : ROGERS and COOK, Circuit J udg es; and DO WD, District J udg e. * DOWD, District J udg e. This is an appea l f rom the denia l of relief

to the petitioner, Jos eph Ashbaug h (“the defe ndant”) , who enter ed g uilty pleas in Michig an state c ourt to a ser ies of cr imes arising from the de fenda nt’s assault of a

h an d i ca p p ed male af

ter a n incident involving the defe ndant’s g irlfriend. The District Court J udg e, Marianne O. Battani, summarized the state court

c on vic tio ns : On Fe bruar

y 22, 2 0 0 1, the petitioner plea ded g uilty to: one count of e x tortion, MI CH .CO MP. L AWS § 75 0. 84 ; tw o c ounts of a ssa ult wi th i nte nt t o g re a t bo dil y harm less than murder, MI CH COMP.L AWS § 750.84; a nd assault with a dang erous wea pon, MI CH.COMP. L AWS § 7 5 0

. 8 2 . I n return, the prosec utor dismissed one co u n to f f i rs t -d egr ee cr i m i n al s ex u al co n d u ct , o n e co u n t o f k i dn ap p i n g, an d a c h ar ge that petitioner violated the c onditions of probat i o n for a previous off ense. The char g es ar ose fr om t h e al l egations t hat Petitioner and two other people thre atene d, beat, a nd sexually

assaulted a

mentally handica pped y oung man. J oint Appendix (“JA”), pa g e 302.No. 06-1184

Ashbaugh v. Gundy

2 Th e pe tit ion e r w a s se nte nc e d to c on c ur re nt te rm s of

imp ri so nme nt f

or se ve nte e n a

nd a ha lf to forty y ear s for the e x tortion conviction; five to twenty y ear s for e ach c ount of assault to do g reat bodily harm; and two to e ight y ear s for a ssault with a dang erous we apon. After failing to obtain collatera l reli ef f rom the Michig an Court of Appe als, he pe titioned
t h e M i c h i g a n S u

p r e m e C o u rt f

o r l e a v e t o a

p p e a l , a d d i n g a n e w c l a i m t h a t h i s p l e a w a s i n v o l u n t a r

y. The Michig an Supreme Court denied him leave to appea l, and Ashbaug h filed the instant habe as petition in federa l court alleg ing three claims: involuntariness of the plea , ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel, a

nd another

issue under Michig an law. T he district cour t found that Ashbaug h h ad not exha u s t ed t h o s e cla ims in st ate c ourt, but excused the exhaustion requireme nt and denied on the merits the first two claims and dismissed the re maining state-lawclaim as incog nizable in feder al court. The district court then g rante d a certificate of a ppeala bility on the exhaustion iss ue and the ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel and involuntariness of plea claims. Ashbaug h expli citly abandone d the fre estanding in ef

fec tive assistance claim in his brief, (Pet. B r. at 4), a nd appea ls the district

c ourt ’s de c isi on

that ( 1) his inv olu

nta ry -p le a c la im is un e xha

us te d a nd (2 ) h is i nv olu

nta ry -p le a c la im is m e ri tle ss. Con c ern ingthe e xha

us tio n is su e , it

is und isp ute d th a t th e de fe nd a nt p re se nte d h is involuntary -plea

claim for the first time to the Michiga n Supreme Court. The pa

rties debate whethe r a cla im is ex hausted by

prese nting it to the hig hest court i n the state or w hether it must also be prese nted to an interme diate appe llate cour t. Compare Ha

fle yv . S owd e rs , 9 02 F .2 d 4 80 , 483 (6 th Cir. 1990), with Manning v. Alex ander , 912 F.2d 878, 881 ( 6th Cir. 1990).No. 06-1184

Ashbaugh v. Gundy

3 Th e c ourt ne e d n ot d e c ide the e xha us tio n is su e be c a

us e the on ly

oth e r i ssu e on

a pp eal, defe ndant’s involuntary -p l ea claim, lacks me rit. “An a pplication for a

writ of habe as cor

pus may be denie d on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of t h e ap plicant to exhaust the remedies available in th e c o u rts o f th e St a te

. ” 2 8 U

. S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( b ) ( 2 )

. I f th e c o u rt f in d s th a t “ ‘ th e fede ral

c on sti tut ion a l c la im [is ] pla inl y me ri tle ss a

nd it w ou ld b e a

wa ste of tim e a nd jud ic ia l r e so ur c e s to require exha

u s ti o n , ’ n o n exhaustion and procedur al def ault should be excused.” Ly on s v . S tov all , 188 F. 3 d 3 2 7 , 3 3 3 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Cain v. Redman , 9 47 F .2 d 8 17 , 8 20 (6 th C ir . 1 99 1) ); se e als o Linscott v. Rose, 436 F.3d 587, 592 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Wit h respe ct to the involuntary plea c laim, a fe dera l court may g rant a writ for ha

beas c orpus to a state pr iso ne r o nly

if the state c ourt ’s de c isi on “ wa s c on tr a ry to, or inv olv e d a

n unr e a so na

ble application of, clea

rly established Feder al l aw, as deter mined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)( 1), or “wa s based on an unrea sonable deter mination of the fa cts in light of the e vidence prese nted in the State cour t proce eding ,” id. § 2254(d)( 2). See Harrison v. Motley , 47 8 F .3 d 7 50 , 7 54 (6 th C ir

. 20 07 ). Th e state c ourt ne e d n ot h a ve e ve n b e e n a wa re of the Sup re me Court case s; the releva

nt inquiry is whether “the reasoning [or] the result of t he st ate- court de cision contra dicts them.” Early v. Packe r , 537 U.S. 3, 8 (2003) (pe r cur iam). Thus, a c ourt should gr ant the writ under § 2254(d)( 1) only if rele vant Supreme Court lawwould have ma ndated that Ashbaug h’s plea be vaca

ted. As hb a ug h a rgue s th a t he wa s con fu se d by the pr oc e e din g s, that his att or ne y fa ile d to e xpla in the conse quence s of a guilty plea and told him that he would, ins tead of being sentenc ed to prison, be sent to a me ntal hospital. As Ashbaug h has aba ndoned his fre estanding ineffe ctive assistanc e ofNo. 06-1184

Ashbaugh v. Gundy

4 c o u n s e l c la im , h e mu s t s h o w n o t o n ly th a t h is c o u n s e l r e n d e r e d “ a d v ic e o u ts id e th e rang e of competenc e dema

nded of atto rney s in criminal case s,” Tollett v. Henderson , 411 U.S. 258, 268 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , b u t a ls o th a t h is mi s a p p r e h e n s io n w o u ld e n ti tl e h im to r e lief. See id. a t 26 7- 68 ; McM ann v. Richardson , 39 7 U. S

. 7 5 9, 770-71 (1970) . The Supreme Court rec ently held that “the Constit uti o n , in respec t to a defe ndant’s aw are ness of re levant cir cumstance s, does not require

c omp le te kn ow le dg e of

the re le va

nt c ir c ums tanc e s, bu t pe rm its a c ourt to a c c e pt a

g uil ty ple a , w ith its accompa

ny ing w aiver

of var ious constituti onal rig hts, despite various forms of misappre hension under w hich a defe ndant might labor,” Un ite d S tat es v . R uiz , 536 U.S. 622, 630 (2002), including the fact that a defenda

nt may misapprehe nd the likely penalties. Brady v. U

nited States , 3 97 U. S. 742, 757 (1970). Ashba

ug h’s alleg ed conf

usion, even if true , would not w arr ant vacatur of his plea under f eder al law a s determined by the Supreme Court, a

nd § 2254(d)( 1) af

fords him no relief

. F ur the rm or e , a

“ state c ourt de c isi on

inv olv e s ‘ a n unr e a so na

ble de te rm inatio n o f t

he fa c ts i n light of the evidenc e pre sented in the State c ourt proce eding ’ only if it is shown that the state c ourt’s presumptively

corr ect f actua l findings a

re r ebutted by

‘cle ar a nd convincing evidenc e’ a nd do not have suppor

t in the rec ord.” Matthews v. Ishe e , 4 8 6 F. 3 d 883, 889 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) ). Ashbaug h there fore must set forth clea r and c onvincing evidence re butting the state c ourt’s finding that his plea wa s “knowing ly , fre ely and voluntarily

made.” (J.A. at 84.) I n this c ase, the defe ndant did not meet that standar d. The district cour t corre ctly

revie wed the plea tr anscr ipt and this court reje cts the def endant’ s argument that the “state court’s de cision that [his ] ple a wa s k no wi nga nd

vo lun tary

ba se d o n a

re vie w o f t

he ple a tr ans cri pt is a

n unr e a so na

ble deter mination of the fac ts in the light of the e vidence befor e this Court.” (Pet. B r. at 17 (c iting 28No. 06-1184

Ashbaugh v. Gundy

5 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).) Ashbaug h selec tively quotes one pa

rt of the transcr ipt whe re he was c onfused b y o n e qu e s t i o n c o n c e r

n i n g w h e t h e ran y p r o m i s e s h a d b e e n m a d e t o i n d

u c e h i m t o p l e a d

g u i l t y. (J.A . a t 79 -8 0. ) I

n r e sp on se to a

pr e vio us qu e sti on

a sk inghim wh e the r “ a ny on e tr ie d to fo rc e [him ] to plead g uilty

by any mistreatment, by

any pressure or by

any duress made upon y ou in a ny way ,” As hb a ug h a ns we re d, “ No , s ir .” (J.A . at 79 .) Ad dit ion a lly , n otwiths tand ingAs hb a ug h’ s h ig hly selec tive example of one instance of some conf usion, the plea tra

nscript as a

whole cle arly

indicates that his plea wa s knowing and voluntary , (J.A. at 69-85), and he is not en t i t l ed t o relief under § 2254(d)( 2). Be cause Ashbaug h’s alleg ations are insufficient to wa rra nt rel i ef, he is not entitled to an evidentiar y hear ing. See Schriro v. Landrigan , 127 S. Ct . 1933, 1940 (2007) ( “In deciding whether to g ra nt an e vid e nti a ry he a ri ng , a fe de ra l c ourt mus t c on sid e r w he the r s uc h a he a ri ngc ou ld e na

ble

an a pp lic ant t o p ro ve the pe tit ion ' s f a c tua l a lle g a tio ns , w hic h, if tr ue , wou ld e nti tle the a

pp lic a nt t o fede ral ha beas r elief.” ). For the fore g oing r easons, the district c ourt’s de n i al o f the de fenda nt’s petition for habe as corpus is AF FI RMED.