Opinion ID: 370573
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Court's Failure to Inform the Defendant of the

Text: 8 Possible Penalty. 9 Under California law, a plea of Nolo contendere ordinarily has the same legal effect as a plea of guilty. See Cal.Penal Code § 1016; Philips v. Attorney General of the State of California, 9 Cir., 1979, 594 F.2d 1288, 1290. We thus apply the federal law governing the reception of guilty pleas in state courts to Miller's plea of Nolo contendere. 10 In Pebworth, supra, 489 F.2d at 267, 268, we held as a matter of federal constitutional law that knowledge of the range of allowable punishment is so important to a defendant who offers a guilty plea, that it is the responsibility of the state court judge to advise a defendant of . . . the punishment that may be imposed. Accord, Yellowwolf v. Morris, 9 Cir., 1976, 536 F.2d 813, 816, n. 5. The district court denied Miller's petition because it read Pebworth as holding that 11 the defendant's unfamiliarity with the maximum sentence does not necessarily invalidate a guilty plea, but rather is a factor to be considered in determining whether the plea is made understandingly. 12 R-29. 13 In our subsequent decision in Yellowwolf v. Morris, supra, 536 F.2d at 815-816, we rejected that interpretation and read Pebworth as establishing a prophylactic rule that a guilty plea must be set aside where a state court judge fails to advise the defendant on the record of the potential sentence. We do not, however, apply the Pebworth rule to reverse Miller's conviction because Yellowwolf also held that Pebworth would not apply retroactively. 536 F.2d at 816. Miller entered his plea on January 27, 1970. Pebworth was not decided until January 2, 1974. 14 Nevertheless, while Yellowwolf held that Pebworth announced a new prophylactic rule, it also recognized that the principle which the rule was designed to protect predated Pebworth. It thus held that a defendant who pled guilty before Pebworth could have his plea set aside if he could show that he would not have pled guilty had he known the potential sentence that he could have received. Where the district court fails to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue, the proper procedure is to vacate the district court's denial of the petition and remand for such a hearing. Yellowwolf, supra, 536 F.2d at 816-817. 15 The state argues that Miller did not explicitly state that he would not have entered his plea had he been advised of the penalty, but we do not deny relief on this ground. Miller's successive petitions do fairly allege that fuller information would have altered his decision to enter his plea. He has consistently alleged that he did not know that he could receive the potential life sentence that he received. He also asserted that his trial counsel persuaded him to change his plea for a grant of probation, thus suggesting that his trial counsel told him that he would be placed on probation if he entered his plea. Under these circumstances, Miller is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to resolve his claims. 16