Opinion ID: 68623
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The State Court’s Unarticulated Finding

Text: The district court erred by finding that the state court implicitly found that Regan had made a plea offer. It is true that if the state court makes an unarticulated finding, then the district court must accept the finding as true unless it determines that the finding was unreasonable or clearly erroneous, Richards v. Quarterman, 566 F.3d 553, 563–64 (5th Cir. 2009), but the federal courts need not defer if there was no such finding. Interpretation of the state court’s ruling is a matter of law that this court reviews de novo. See Gomez, 529 F.3d at 327. The district court’s conclusion was based on the state court’s finding that Will’s ineffective assistance claim “relate[s] to strategic choices made by his counsel at the time of [Will’s] trial. [Will’s] claims are essentially with his counsel’s decision regarding [Will’s] plea at trial. This is considered trial tactics 8 No. 07-30772 for purposes of evaluating the performance of [Will’s] counsel.” Although confusing, this language does not lead us to conclude that the state court found a plea offer had been made. It is more reasonable to conclude that the state court referred only to plea discussions instead of a bona fide plea offer. The state court would have been less likely to so easily dispose of Will’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel if it had found a plea offer had actually been made. Because the state court’s ultimate conclusion did not require it to find a plea offer, we conclude that the state court did not find Regan made any plea offer to Murray. We must reverse the district court’s ruling.