FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NELSON WILKINS ALLEN, No. 08-35386
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00639-RJB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
KENNETH QUINN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 10, 2010 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Without determining whether this claim is procedurally barred from federal
habeas relief, we deny the claim on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). Under
AEDPA, we review the last reasoned decision by a state court, which in this case
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
was the Washington Court of Appeals’s decision on direct appeal. See Robinson v.
Ignacio, 360 F.3d 1044, 1055 (9th Cir. 2004).
The Washington Court of Appeals’s decision that Allen’s plea was voluntary
was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law as determined by
the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Under Supreme Court precedent,
a plea is voluntary so long as it is entered by one fully aware of the direct
consequences, and not induced by threats, misrepresentation, or improper
promises. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755 (1970); see Hill v. Lockhart,
474 U.S. 52, 56 (1985). Allen claims that his plea did not meet this standard
because he was given an unreasonably short amount of time (a few hours) in which
to consider the plea offer, his comments during his colloquy demonstrated that he
felt under pressure, and his comments made after acceptance of the plea indicated
that he regretted his choice. But no Supreme Court case holds that court-imposed
time constraints render a plea involuntary per se, and under the circumstances of
this case, the Washington Court of Appeals’s determination that Allen’s plea was
voluntary notwithstanding the time constraints was not an unreasonable application
of Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Moreover, the
Washington Court of Appeals’s determination that Allen’s colloquy amply
demonstrated his understanding of the direct consequences of the plea and that he
entered into the plea without improper threats or misrepresentations was not an
unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. See id. Accordingly,
Allen’s petition for habeas relief is denied.
DENIED.