2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-30-2009 

# R ice v . W ynde r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-4689

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion " R ic e v . W y nde r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 581. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/581NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 4689 CA RL R. RI CE, A ppel l ant

v. J AM E S T . WYNDE R; T HE DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF THE C OU NTY OF PHI LAD ELPHI A; THE A TTOR NEY G E N E R A L O F T H E S T A T E O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 00683) D i s t r i ct J udge: H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond Subm i t t ed U nder T hi r d C i r cui t L A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember 25, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , FI SH E R and J O R D A N , C i r cui t J udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: Sept ember 30, 2009)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui t J udge On May 17 , 200 7, we granted a c erti ficate of appeal abil it

y as to two o f C ar l Ric e’ sR i ce i s a U . S . ci t i zen, and l at er s t at ed that t he reference t o d epo rt at i on w as a 1 m i s t ake. -2- f ed eral h ab eas claim s, each o f w h ich alleg eda v io latio n o f h is S ix th A m en d m en t rig h t to the e ffe c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of c ouns e l . Ri c e ar gue s tha t c ouns e l r e nde r e d i ne ffe c t i ve assistan ce w h en h e f

ailedto f ile a d irect ap p eal an dw h en h e f ailedto p ro p erly

ad v ise Ri c e r e gar di ng the pos s i bi l i ty of obt a i ni ng ar e duc t i on of hi s s e nt e nc e , the r e by i nduc i ng R i c e t o p l e a dg u i l ty . W e w i l l a f f i rm. I. Ri c e pl e d gui l ty

t o thi r d- de gr e e m

ur de r and othe r

r e l a t e d c har ge s pur s uant t o a pl e aa gr e e m e nt

i n whi c h he a gr e e d t o as e nt e nc e of 27 t o 54 y e ar s i n pr i s on i n r e t urn for the Comm on weal th’s agre em ent t o d rop a firs t- degree m urder char ge. Ric e did no t fil e a di r e c t a ppe a l , but i ns t e a d fi l e d aPCRA pe t i t i on i n whi c h he a ppar e nt l y ar gue d, a l though it is le ss than cl ear, that

coun se l was ineffect ive bec ause he fail ed to file a post- se ntence m o tio n f o r m o d if icatio n o f th e sen ten ce, f

ailedto ad v ise R ice th at h is g u ilty p lea co u ld re sult in depo rt at ion, and f

ai le d to f il e an app ea l i n a ti m el y

m anner. Th e PCRA C ou rt 1 denied Rice ’s peti ti on , but the Sup er ior Cou rt re m anded f

or a hear ing as t o “wh ether [ R ice] in d eedrequ estedth at co u n sel f ile a d irect ap p eal, w h eth er co u n sel in ef f ectiv ely fail ed to file that

appeal , andfo r c on si derati on of any other i ss ues r ai se d b y

[R ic e].” (A p p . at 8 7 .) The PCRA Court

he l d atwo- part

he ar i ng a t

whi c h Ri c e wa s r e pr e s e nt e d by-3-

c ouns e l . At

the fi r s t par t of the he ar i ng, on Fe br

uary 23, 2004, the Court

he ar d the te st im on y of plea coun se l, wh o tes ti fied that an inte rm ediary

as ked h im

to se ek reco n sid eratio n o f

R ice’s sen ten ce an dth at h e f ailedto d o so . C o u n se l w a s u n c lea r a s to w het her R i ce hi m s el f r eques t ed hi m t o fi l e an a ppeal or a pos t - s ent ence m ot i on. Ri c e the n t e s t i fi e d that

he wa s s e e ki ng onl y

r e c ons i de r a t i on of hi s s e nt e nc e and tha t he wa s not s e e ki ng t o wi thdr aw hi s pl e a . Ri c e di d not a s k tha t hi s a ppe l l a t e r i ght s be re inst at ed and cou nsel conf ir m ed with Rice , on the re cord, that the on ly re li ef Rice was se eking w as re consider at ion o f h is se ntence . Th e PCRA C ou rt

then sc hedu le d an evidentiary hear ing “with re gard to [the] m otion to rec on si der or m od ify the s ente nce, ” t o b e hel d the fo ll ow ing w ee k. (App . at 31. ) At that he ar i ng, on Fe br

uary 27, 2004, Ri c e t e s t i fi e d tha t he unde r s t ood tha t

he a gr e e d t o 27 t o 54 y e ar s , but that “ I unde r s t ood thi s t o m e an . . . m ay be by the m e r c y

of the Cou rt , the m it igat ing f ac tors , m ay

be the ple a wou ld have been 20 to 40 .” (App . at 34. ) Ri c e t e s t i fi e d that

pl e ac ouns e l ne ve r

t ol d hi m tha t the s e nt e nc e c oul d not

be m odi fi e d fr om

the a gr e e d- upon 27 t o 54 y e ar s , and di d t e l l hi m “ he woul d fi l e am ot i on to reco n sid er th e sen ten ce in f iv e y ears o r so m eth in g lik e th is.” (A p p . at 3 5 .) O n cro ssexam inat ion, Rice conf

ir m ed that he had comm itte d the cr im es to wh ic h h e had pled g u ilty an dh adtestif

iedtru th f u lly as to h is u n d erstan d in g o f h is p lea at th e p lea co llo qu y . He s t a t e d that

the pl e at o thi r d de gr e e m ur de r wa s “ gr e a t l y

a ppr e c i a t e d” ( App. a t

34) b ecau se it en su redth at h e w o u ldn o t f ace th e d eath p en alty . In clo sin g , co u n sel stated :-4-

“[ P ] etitio n er is n o t attem

p tin g to w ith draw h is p lea. H e is n o t sayin g th at h e is n o t g u ilty . Wh at h e is sayin g is th at h e d idn o t u n d erstan dth at it w as b in d in g th at h e w o u ldg et 2 7 to 5 4 y ears in carceratio n .” (A p p . at 4 1 .) The PCRA Court

the n de t e rm i ne d: I thi nk, Mr . Ri c e , I thi nk he unde r s t ood e xa c t l y wha t wa s goi ng on a t

the t i m e of hi s pl e a ; wa s thankful tha t he avoi de d both the de a th pe na l ty and a l i fe s e nt e nc e ; that

thi s i s ac l e ar

c a s e of c hange of he art , hi nds i ght , s e c ondgu es si ng , whate ver, disa

pp ointm ent i n som e way

subsequent to the t im e, a l though he wa s thor oughl y s a t i s fi e d, I do be l i e ve , a t the t i m e of the e ve nt w h en h e receiv edth e ab so lu te b en ef it o f h is b arg ain , w h ich w as th e 2 7 to 5 4 y ears. (A p p . at 4 1 .) On a ppe a l fr om

thi s de c i s i on, Ri c e t ook adi ffe r e nt a ppr oa c h, ar gui ng tha t

the PC RA Co urt s ho uld h ave a ll ow ed him to withdraw his guilt

y plea beca use i t was indu ce d by coun se l’ s e rr on eous se ntenci ng advice . The Superi or Co urt fou ndthat Rice had abando ned any

cl ai m of ineffecti ve as si st ance as to the fil ing –or no n-fili ng – o f a dire ct appeal . The Co urt went on to d is cuss , i n som e det ai l, the a pp li ca ble l aw and, in m

uch deta il , the re cord that

it fo un d sup po rt ed the PCR A C ou rt ’s conclusi on that the r equisi te s fo r a vali d p le a had been sat is fied in the wri tt en and o ra l ple a c olloqu ie s. Th e Cou rt th ereup o n f

o u n dth at [ t] h e reco rdsup p o rts th e P C RA co u rt’s co n clu sio n th at A p p ellan t ch o se to e nt e r the pl e a , and, a ft e r

he wa s s e nt e nc e d i n a c c or danc e wi th the ag reem en t in ex ch an g e f

o r th e w ith draw al o f

f irst d eg ree m

u rd er ch arg es, he wa s di s a

ppoi nt e d wi th the ne got i a t e d s e nt e nc e . “ Our l aw doe s not r e qui r e that

ade fe ndant

be t ot a l l y pl e a s e d wi th the out c om e of hi s de c i s i on t o pl e a d gui l ty , onl y

that hi s de c i s i on be vol unt ary , knowi ng and i nt e l l i ge nt . ” Pol l ar d, 832 A. 2d a t 524 ( quot i ng Comm onwe a l th v. Ba l dwi n, 7 6 0 A .2 d8 8 3 , 8 8 5 (P a. S up er. 2 0 0 0 ), ap peal denied , 566 Pa . 634, 781-5-

A.2d13 8 (20 01 )) . ( App. a t 95) . Conc l udi ng that

Ri c e ’ s ne got i a t e d gui l ty

pl e awa s va l i dl y

e nt e r e d, the Court r e je c t e d the i ne ffe c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of c ouns e l c l a i m fi ndi ng tha t

c ouns e l wa s not ineffecti ve fo r fai li ng to ra is e a m er it le ss cl ai m . The Penn sylvania Suprem e Cou rt

denied r e vi e w. I n hi s habe a s pe t i t i on, Ri c e a l l e ge d tha t he wa s de pr i ve d of hi s Si xth Am e ndm e nt r i ght t o e ffe c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of c ouns e l not be c aus e c ouns e l fa i l e d t o fi l e an a ppe a l , but beca use c ou nsel fail ed to file a post- se ntence m otion d es pite the fac t t hat Ric e “s peci fica ll y

as ked p le a c ou nsel to file a m otion f or re consider at ion o f h is se ntence w ith in th e 1 0 -d ay

w in d o w p erm ittedf

o r d o in g so .” (A p p . at 5 1 .) R ice alleg ed , as w ell, th at co u n sel d idn o t ex p lain to h im th at “[ h e] w as p lead in g g u ilty f o r a sp ecif

ic s e nt e nc e , ” and that

“ [hi s ] y outh a t

the t i m e of the pl e a , a s we l l a s hi s poor e duc a t i on, c om bi ne d wi th pl e ac ouns e l ’ s i ne ffe c t i ve ne s s r e nde r e d hi s gui l ty pl e aunknowi ng and invo luntar il y

ente re d.” ( Ap p. at

51 -52.) By or de r da t e d Nove m

be r 5, 2006, the Di s tr i c t

Court a ppr ove d and a dopt e d the Repo rt and R ec omm endati on of the Magis tr at e Jud ge, anddenied the habeas peti ti on . I n th e O p i n i o n a d o p t e db y

th e C o u rt , th e M a g i s tr a t e Ju d g e r e c o g n i z e dth a t th e t e rms

“ m ot i on for

r e c ons i de r at i on” and “ a

ppe a l ” we r e us e d i nt e r c hange abl y by c ouns e l a t

the P C RA h earin g . (A p p . at 6 , n .1 ). S o m ew h at cu rio u sly , th e M ag istrate Ju d g e co n tin u edto us e the t e rm s i nt e r c hange abl y , c a l l i ng the m i n hi s Opi ni on “ a

ppe l l a t e r i ght s , ” andI t appea r s t hat t he compl et e s t at e r ecor d w as not befor e t he M agi s t r at e J udge or t he 2 D is tr ic t C o u rt w h e n th e y ru le d o r b e f o re u s w h e n w e g ra n te d a c e rt if ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility. It is b e f o re u s n o w . -6- co n clu d in g th at h ab eas relief w as n o t w arran tedb ecau se R ice’s “state ap p ellate rig h ts” h adef f ectiv ely b een rein stated“th ro u g h tw o P C RA ev id en tiary h earin g s an df

u ll appell at e r evie w.” ( Id. at 12). He c on cl ud ed as well that the Sup er ior Cou rt ’s ruli ng as t o the vol unt ar i ne s s of Ri c e ’ s pl e awa s “ we l l i n a c c or d wi th fe de r a l l aw, ” and why , and th at to accep t R ice’s arg u m en t th at p lea co u n sel’s ad v ice –o r lackth ereo f –in du cedh is g u ilty p lea b ecau se R ice b eliev edth at h e co u ldf ile a m o tio n f

o r reco n sid eratio n “w o u ld re qu ir e the Co urt t o d is re gard ou tr ight al l t he st at em ents m ade i n o pen cou rt , on-ther e c or d and i n di r e c t

r e s pons e t o que s t i ons about [Ri c e ’ s ] unde r s t andi ng of the consequences of his plea .” (App . at 14, 16 .) We grante d a ce rt ific at e of app ea la bili ty as to two iss ues: (1) whether c ou nsel re nd er ed ineffecti ve as si st ance wh en he fail ed to file a dir ec t a pp ea l; and (2) wh ether Ri c e ’ s gui l ty

pl e a wa s i nduc e d by

pl e ac ouns e l ’ s fa i l ur e t o pr ope r l y a dvi s e hi m

r e gar di ng th e p o ssib ility

o f o b tain in g a redu ctio n o f

h is ag reed -up o n sen ten ce u n d er P en n sylv an ia l aw. 2 II. W e e xe r c i s e pl e nary

r e vi e w of the de c i s i on of the Di s tr i c t Court de nyi ng, wi thout an e vi de nt i ary

he ar i ng, Ri c e ’ s habe a s pe t i t i on. Thom a s v. Horn, 570 F. 3d 105, 113 ( 3d Ci r . 2009) . The Di s tr i c t

Court ha d jur i s di c t i on pur s uant t o 28 U. S. C. §§ 2241 and 2254,-7-

and we have jur i s di c t i on pur s uant t o 28 U. S. C. §§1291 and 2253. A. I ne ffe c t i ve As s i s t anc e for Fai l ur e t o Fi l e an Appe al We grante d a ce rt ific at e of app ea la bili ty as to defense counsel’ s fai lure to file a dire ct appeal . I n light of

the full r ec ord n ow befo re us, we nee d n ot have do ne so. Ric e re peat edly

te st ifie d at the PC RA hear ing that t he on ly re li ef he was se eking w as m od ific at ion o f h is se ntence by the s ente ncing j ud ge, thu s e ss enti al ly adm itti ng that coun se l was no t i neff

ec ti ve fo r not fili ng an appeal . This was conf ir m ed in Rice ’s brie f on a ppe a l fr om

the de ni a l of the PCRA pe t i t i on whi c h s t a t e d: “ I t wa s e s t abl i s he d [a t

the PCRA he ar i ng] that

the a ppe l l ant di d not wi s h t o a ppe a l hi s c onvi c t i on, but

tha t he desi re d o nly

a m od ific at ion o f sente nce. ” ( Ap p. at 15 0.) The is sue, if is sue i t be, never w e n t an y f u rth e r , an dth e S up e r i o r

C o u rt c o n c l u d e dth a t

R i c e “ ab an d o n e dan y

c l a i ms relatedto co u n sel’s f

ailu re to f ile a d irect ap p eal.” (A p p . at 9 1 n .4 ). We ag ree. B. Gu il ty Plea Indu ce d b y Ineffective Assi st an ce of Co un se l We m ay n o t g ran t relief

as to a claim

th at w as ad

j u d icatedo n th e m erits in state c ourt pr oc e e di ngs unl e s s that

a djudi c a t i on r e s ul t e d i n ade c i s i on tha t wa s “ c ontr ary

t o, or i nvol ve d an unr e a s onabl e a ppl i c at i on of, c l e ar l y

e s t abl i s he d Fe de r a l l aw, ” or r e s ul t e d i n a d ecisio n th at w as b asedo n an “u n reaso n ab le d eterm in atio n o f th e f acts.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2254( d) . The s t at e c ourt s ’ fa c t ua l fi ndi ngs ar e pr e s um e d t o be c orr e c t unl e s s the p resu m p tio n is reb u ttedb y

clear an dco n v in cin g ev id en ce. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (e)(1 ). I n c a s e s whe r e ade fe ndant c l a i m s tha t

he wa s i nduc e d t o pl e a d gui l ty ba s e d on the-8-

in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f

co u n sel, th e d ef

en d an t m u st sh o w “a reaso n ab le p ro b ab ility th at, but for c ouns e l ’ s e rr or s , he woul d not have pl e a de d gui l ty

and woul d have i ns i s t e d on goi ng t o tr i a l . ” Hi l l v. Loc khart , 474 U. S. 52, 59 ( 1985) . W e have he l d tha t ade fe ndant

“ m us t m ake m or e than abar e a l l e ga t i on tha t but for c ouns e l ’ s e rr or

he woul d have plea ded n ot gu il ty

and g on e t o tri al .” Parr

y v. Ro se m eyer , 64 F .3d 1 10 , 118 (3d C ir . 1995) , s upe r s e de d by

s t at ut e on othe r

gr ounds a s s t a t e d i n Di c ke r s on v. Vaughn, 90 F. 3d 8 7 , 9 0 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 6 ). Ri c e a l l e ge s that , but

for c ouns e l ’ s fa i l ur e t o i nform hi m tha t hi s s e nt e nc e wa s not m odi fi abl e , he woul d have pl e a de d not gui l ty and tha t “ part of the r e a s on he e nt e r e d the p lea w as b ecau se h e f

elt th e sen ten ce co u ldb e rev isitedan dsh o rten edat a later p o in t.” (A p p ellan t’s B r. at 4 1 ). D u rin g th e P C RA h earin g , h e sp ecif ically an drep eated ly d isclaim edan y

in terest in w ith draw in g h is g u ilty p lea, an dco n f

irm edth at h e tru th f

u lly ans we r e d a l l of the tr i a l c ourt ’ s que s t i ons about hi s unde r s t andi ng of hi s pl e adur i ng the plea coll oq uy . Moreover, he did n ot te st ify that any advice given b y

plea coun se l before entr y of his guilt y plea indu ce d h im

to plea d g uilt

y , but on ly

that plea coun se l t old h im , at so m e p o in t, th at h e w o u ldf ile a m o tio n in f

iv e y ears an dth at th e sen ten ce, at th at p o in t, could b e r educed. On app ea l from the denia l of the PC RA peti ti on , how ever , he a ll eged th at “th ere is a reaso n ab le p ro b ab ility th at h e w o u ldh av e g o n e to trial h adh e b een f u lly cogn iz ant of the se ntence to wh ic h h e was agre ei ng ,” (App . at 132 ), al thou gh he of fered n o th in g to sup p o rt th at alleg atio n .-9-

W e have di s c us s e d i n s om e de t a i l the pr oc e e di ngs be for e the PCRA Court and the Superi or Co urt andwill no t r epri se that disc ussi on here . Suf

fice it to say that the Dis tr ic t C o u rt co rrectly

co n clu d edth at th e state co u rts’ ad j u d icatio n o f

th is claim

o n th e m erits w as n o t “co n trary

to ” o r an “u n reaso n ab le ap p licatio n o f clearly estab lish edF ed eral law ,” nor di d i t r e s ul t i n ade c i s i on that

wa s ba s e d on an “ unr e a s onabl e de t e rm i na t i on of the f acts.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ). III. We w ill af

f irm th e o rd er o f

th e D istrict C o u rt.