Petitioner's Guilty Plea Was Involuntary Where Based on False Promise of 3-Year Side Deal

Tovar Mendoza v. Hatch, 2010 WL 3965209 (10/12/10) (Published) - A wonderful victory in a habeas case. The 10th held that the petitioner's guilty plea was rendered involuntary by a promise by his attorney that he would get a 3-year sentence because the attorney had worked out a side deal with the judge. The plea agreement called for a sentence up to 30 years and the petitioner got 25 years. The 10th did not apply the stringent AEDPA standards of review because, in denying the state habeas claim, the state trial court judge found the plea to be voluntary solely based on a review of the plea colloquy and not based on any of the evidence outside the record that was developed at the federal evidentiary hearing and that resulted in factual findings by the magistrate judge adopted by the d. ct.. The 10th distinguished the attorney's promise from the bad sentence guesses of attorneys in other cases, which did not warrant relief. The 10th acknowledged the formidable barrier of the petitioner's sworn statements at the plea hearing that no promises had been made to him, but found the barrier had been overcome because the plea agreement was never translated for the petitioner, and the lawyer had told the petitioner there was a side deal and stood beside the petitioner at the plea hearing and told him how to answer the judge's questions. The 10th disagreed with Judge Black's ruling that the petitioner had forfeited any chance for relief because he had perjured himself in front of the state trial judge. The 10th said that such a ruling would effectively overrule Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977), in which the Court held sworn plea hearing statements could be overcome. Magistrate Judge Garza deserves a hats off for making the necessary factual findings that were adopted by the d. ct. and recommending granting the petition.