T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T K EN N ETH PA TRI CK H I BBLER, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. J AME S B E NE DE T T I a n d NE VA DA ATTORNEY GENERAL, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 16683 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 4 6 7 - RCJ - V PC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da R obe r tC l i ve J one s , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J une 12, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: D . W . N E L S O N , R A W L IN S O N , an d IK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T he N e va da S upr e m e C our tdi d notm a ke a n unr e a s onabl e de t e r m i na t i on of th e f a c ts in lig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e b e f

o r e th e s ta te c o u r t, o ru n r e a s o n ab ly ap p ly cl ea rl y e st abl i shed S up re m e C ou rtprec edent , w hen i tre j ec t ed K enneth P atri ck H i bbl e r ’ s c l a i m s tha the w a s de ni e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o e f f e c t i ve

# FI LED SEP 10 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSW e a d d re ss H ib b ler’s in ef fe ctiv e a ss istan ce claim b as ed o n co u n se l’ s 1 a l l ow i ng H i bbl e rt o pl e a d gui l ty a ta t i m e w he n he w a s a l l e ge dl yi nc om pe t e nti n a s e pa r a t e opi ni on f

i l e d c onc urr e nt l y w i th thi s m e m or a ndum di s pos i t i on. 2 a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l d u e to c o u n s e l’s : ( 1 ) m is a d v is in g h im ab o u t th e a v a ilab ility o f a n in sa n ity o r d im in ish ed ca p ac ity d ef en se , an d (2 ) f

aili n g to p re se n t H ib b ler’s re qu es tt o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl ea . See 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4(d). 1 F i rs t , the st at e c ou rtre as on abl y det erm i ned thatH i bb l er ’ s a l l egat i on that c ouns e l t ol d hi m tha tno i ns a ni ty de f e ns e e xi s t e d i n N e va da w a s i nc r e di bl e i n l i ght of the r e c or d, w hi c h c onc l us i ve l y s how e d tha tc ouns e l w a s a c t i ve l y pur s ui ng a po t ent i al i nsani ty def

ense pri or t o the pl ea . T hi s f i nd i ng w as no tre nd er ed unr e a s onabl e by the s t a t e c our t ’ s f a i l ur e t o hol d a n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng be c a us e the s t a t e c our tr e a s onabl y c onc l ude d tha tH i bbl e r ’ s a l l e ga t i ons w e r e be l i e d by the r e c o r d . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Hi bb l er , ___F .3 d ____( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 2 ) ; P er ezv. R o s a r io , 459 F . 3d 943, 950 ( 9th C i r . 2006) . M or e ove r , the s t a t e c our tdi d not un re as on abl y app l y S up re m e C ou rtprec edenti n con cl ud i ng thatany i ncorrec t a dvi c e by c ouns e l w oul d notha ve pr e j udi c e d H i bbl e rbe c a us e i tw oul d notha ve been rat i on al for H i bb l ert o i nsi ston go i ng t o tri al on m uch m ore s er i ou s c harges b a s e d o n a w e a k d e f

e n s e . See P ad i l la v. Kentucky , 130 S . C t . 1473, 1485–86 (201 0).3

S e c ond, the s t a t e c our t ’ s f i ndi ng tha tH i bbl e ra s s e nt e d t o U nga r o’ s de c i s i on no tt o m ov e t o w i thd ra w the pl eaw as re as on abl e gi ven that(1) U ng ar o w as appo i nt ed, i n p art , t o d i sc uss w i thd ra w i ng the pl eaw i th H i bb l er ; and (2) H i bb l er confi rm ed thathe w i shed t o ret ai n U ng ar o as c ou nsel i m m edi at el y a ft erU ng ar o st at ed thatshe s aw no basi s f or w i thd ra w i ng the pl ea . T he s t a t e c our t ’ s a l t e rna t i ve c o n c lu s io n , th a t a n y d e f ic ie n c y r e s u ltin g f

r o m U n g a r o ’s f

a ilu r e to m o v e to w i thdr a w the pl e a w a s notpr e j udi c i a l , w a s nota n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of Str i c kland v . W

as hi ngton , 4 6 6 U .S . 6 6 8 ( 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e s ta te c o u r t r e a s o n ab ly c onc l ude d tha tthe r e w a s no r e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha ta m ot i on t o w i thdr a w the pl eaw ou l d h ave been succ es sf ul si nce H i bb l eraddu ce d n o cre di bl e e vi dence that th e p le a w a s n o t k n o w in g a n d v o lu n ta ry . Se e Mo lin a v . S ta te , 87 P . 3d 533, 537–38 (N ev . 2 0 0 4 ) (p re-sen t en ce m o t i o n t o w i th d raw p l ea p ro p erl y d en i ed b ecau se t ot a l i ty of

c i r c um s t a nc e s s how e d tha tde f e nda ntvol unt a r i l y , know i ngl y , a nd i nt el l i gent l y e nt er ed the pl eaagre em ent ). T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y deni ed H i bb l er ’ s r equestfor a n evi dent i ary he a r i ng. A n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng i s unne c e s s a ry w he n the s t a t e c our t ’ s de c i s i on w ith s ta n d s s c ru tin y u n d e r§ 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . See C ul l en v. P i nh ol ster , 131 S . C t . 1388, 14 00 & n. 7 (20 11 ). AF F I RME D.