Opinion ID: 3037135
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Santobello Claim

Text: Because Petitioner filed his habeas petition after April 24, 1996, it is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Under AEDPA, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted unless the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” id. § 2254(d)(2). There is no reasoned state-court decision addressing Petitioner’s claim that the use of his 1986 conviction as eight strikes violated his plea agreement. He first raised the claim DAVIS v. WOODFORD 4831 in a habeas petition before the California Supreme Court, and that petition was denied without comment. Therefore, we undertake an independent review of the record. See Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Federal habeas review is not de novo when the state court does not supply reasoning for its decision, but an independent review of the record is required to determine whether the state court clearly erred in its application of controlling federal law.”). [2] In Santobello, the Supreme Court held that the government is bound by plea agreements and that, “when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” 404 U.S. at 262. The question before us is whether the state promised Petitioner that he would have only one prior conviction on his record and, if so, whether Petitioner’s guilty plea was induced by that promise. See Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 509-10 (1984) (clarifying that a Santobello claim requires the plea to be induced by the prosecutor’s promise). Although we know little about the 1986 robberies, we do know from the plea colloquy that two informations were filed against Petitioner. Further, Petitioner’s testimony in the 2000 trial and a declaration by his codefendant make it clear that several robberies were involved. Thus, the state could have brought and tried two separate cases, possibly resulting in two prior convictions under then-current law, but it agreed to consolidate them. The Warden argues that the prosecutor’s in-court statements merely explained the extant law but made no promise to Petitioner. Reading the 1986 plea colloquy as a whole, we are unpersuaded. The only reasonable inference to draw from the colloquy is that the state promised to treat the conviction as a single “prior.” [3] California Penal Code section 667(a)(1), which was the law in effect at the time of Petitioner’s 1986 conviction, pro4832 DAVIS v. WOODFORD vides that a person being sentenced for certain serious felonies receives a five-year sentence enhancement “for each such prior conviction [of certain serious felonies] on charges brought and tried separately.” (Emphasis added.) “Brought and tried separately” means that “the underlying proceedings must have been formally distinct, from filing to adjudication of guilt.” In re Harris, 775 P.2d 1057, 1060 (Cal. 1989). Separate charging documents are required, but guilty pleas and sentences do not have to be entered and imposed in separate proceedings. People v. Wagner, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 383, 388 (3d Dist. Ct. App. 1994); People v. Gonzales, 269 Cal. Rptr. 221, 224-25 (6th Dist. Ct. App. 1990); People v. Thomas, 267 Cal. Rptr. 908, 915-16 (4th Dist. Ct. App. 1990). Accordingly, in the context of that statute, the prosecutor’s statement to Petitioner that a later sentence for a serious felony could be enhanced by five years—rather than by ten years—takes on particular significance. [4] If there had been no possibility of more than one prior conviction, then the statement that Petitioner would have only one prior on his record would have been merely descriptive. But it is evident from the plea colloquy that the prosecutor bargained away his right to bring two separate cases against Petitioner in exchange for a guilty plea. In the circumstances, the statement that there would only be one prior on Petitioner’s record was promissory in nature. [5] We also reject the Warden’s argument that the statements made by the prosecutor at the 1986 plea colloquy were not part of the agreement. Although the transcript of that hearing is the only evidence the parties have given us of the terms of the plea agreement, the prosecutor’s statements show conclusively that the “single prior” term had been bargained for expressly. At the outset of the hearing, when asked by the court to describe the terms of the agreement, the prosecutor replied that there would be only “one prior” on Petitioner’s record “for all purposes” and that the two informations were to be consolidated. Even if this term had not been negotiated DAVIS v. WOODFORD 4833 before the proceedings took place in open court, it still became part of the agreement as a result of the prosecutor’s statements at the plea colloquy. Brown v. Poole, 337 F.3d 1155, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2003). [6] Furthermore, it is clear that the prosecutor’s promise played a role in Petitioner’s decision to plead guilty. What induced the guilty plea is an objective inquiry: “Where it is clear from context what would reasonably have prompted acceptance of the agreement, even in part, no further speculative factual inquiry is needed.” Id. at 1160 (citing INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 322-23 (2001)). Objectively, the benefits of the bargain to Petitioner were the relatively short prison term and the fact that he would have only one prior conviction on his record. Deciding that the promise of “one prior” had no bearing on Petitioner’s decision to plead guilty would be an unreasonable finding of fact within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Under AEDPA, we also must consider whether the California Supreme Court’s decision is consistent with a proper application of state contract law in interpreting the plea agreement; if not, the decision was an “unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law. Buckley v. Terhune, 441 F.3d 688, 694-95 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc); Brown, 337 F.3d at 1160 n.2; see also Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1, 6 n.3 (1987) (holding that the interpretation of state plea agreements is a matter of state law). We recognize that, in California, contracts (including plea bargains) are “deemed to incorporate and contemplate not only the existing law but the reserve power of the state to amend the law or enact additional laws.” People v. Gipson (In re Gipson), 12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 478, 481 (6th Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our holding today respects this principle. The present case is easily distinguishable from Gipson. There, the court upheld application of the Three Strikes Law against a defendant whose plea agreement in an earlier case 4834 DAVIS v. WOODFORD had incorporated section 667(a) by reference. Id. at 482. Here, the plea agreement did not merely incorporate existing law by reference; rather, it included a specific promise about how many prior convictions would be placed in Petitioner’s criminal record as a result of the guilty plea. Petitioner’s plea bargain did not purport to freeze the law as it was in 1986. Instead, the parties agreed on the facts (number of “priors”) that could be used, later, to sentence Petitioner under whatever law might then be in effect. [7] Under California law, a contract must be interpreted so as “to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1636. The prosecutor unequivocally stated that Petitioner would have only one prior conviction on his record “for all purposes.” Even if there were ambiguity, which we think there was not, any such ambiguity should be resolved in Petitioner’s favor. Buckley, 441 F.3d at 698; People v. Toscano, 20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 923, 926 (2d Dist. Ct. App. 2004). As a matter of California contract law, Petitioner’s prior conviction counted as only one strike. [8] The Warden’s counsel protested at oral argument that holding the state to this promise would conflict with Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (1992), in which the Supreme Court upheld Kentucky’s use of a rebuttable presumption that a conviction offered for sentencing enhancement purposes was validly obtained, and noted that recidivism statutes have been repeatedly upheld against various constitutional challenges. Id. at 30, 34. Our result does not conflict with Parke. We do not here undermine the constitutionality of the Three Strikes Law, nor do we question whether it applied to this case. We also do not quarrel with the notion that, ordinarily, each count in a single proceeding can be used as a separate “strike” under that statute. People v. Fuhrman, 941 P.2d 1189, 1194 (Cal. 1997). We hold only that the state must live with the particular bargain that it made. This is an unusual case, in that the prosecutor made a specific promise about the number of “priDAVIS v. WOODFORD 4835 ors” that would go on Petitioner’s criminal record as a result of pleading guilty. Giving effect to the plea agreement means, simply, treating the 1986 conviction as a single strike under the Three Strikes Law. [9] Implicit in the California Supreme Court’s denial of Petitioner’s Santobello claim are an unreasonable finding of fact and an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s denial of the habeas petition on that ground.