Opinion ID: 739728
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: False Evidence in Presentence Report

Text: 67 Villafuerte argues that the state trial court committed constitutional error by relying on false evidence at the sentencing hearing. During sentencing, the state trial court asked Villafuerte if the interpreter had read the presentence report to him. He replied that she had, but it's erroneous, Your Honor. Therefore, I cannot accept it in this case. 68 Villafuerte testified in his own behalf at that hearing. He mentioned only two errors in the presentence report: he testified he did not tell the probation officer he had only had ten beers on the day of the crime, and he testified he did not tell the probation officer he was a lawyer. 69 There is no indication that the state trial court relied on false information during sentencing. During sentencing, Villafuerte was able to explain why he believed these two statements were erroneous. The state trial court also had heard conflicting testimony on these two issues. At trial, Villafuerte testified: I got my law degree from the University of Honduras.... Villafuerte also testified that he was not so intoxicated at the time of the offense that he was unaware of his actions. 70 During the state court hearing on his state habeas corpus petition, Villafuerte failed to identify any other false evidence allegedly relied on at sentencing. In its order rejecting this claim, the state court found, There is no evidentiary basis for this argument. Villafuerte has failed to show the existence of materially false information relied on by the sentencer. This claim fails. See Oxborrow v. Eikenberry, 877 F.2d 1395, 1400 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 942, 110 S.Ct. 344, 107 L.Ed.2d 332 (1989).