F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
MAR 8 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
PHILLIP KEVIN BUSH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. No. 03-1481
GARY NEET, Warden; JOHN W.
SUTHERS, Attorney General of the
State of Colorado, *
Respondents - Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D.C. No. 01-B-439-BNB)
Submitted on the briefs:
Phillip K. Bush, Pro Se.
Ken Salazar, Attorney General, John J. Fuerst III, Assistant Attorney General,
Appellate Division, Criminal Justice Section, Denver, Colorado for Respondents.
Before HARTZ, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, ** District
Judge.
*
John W. Suthers, Attorney General for the State of Colorado, is substituted
as a respondent-appellee. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
**
The Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, District Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.
HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
Applicant Phillip Kevin Bush, a Colorado state prisoner proceeding pro se,
filed an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief from his state-court
convictions. The federal district court denied relief and declined to issue a
certificate of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring
COA to proceed on appeal). This court granted a COA on whether the plea
agreement entered into by Mr. Bush and the government is enforceable. We
affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief. 1
Background
Mr. Bush entered guilty pleas in March 1984 to charges of sexual assault,
burglary, and aggravated robbery. He also entered guilty pleas to two
habitual-criminal counts based on his prior convictions. Other charges were
dismissed as part of the plea bargain. The parties stipulated that Mr. Bush would
receive a prison sentence of 25 to 30 years. The state trial court imposed a
sentence of 30 years, within the stipulated range.
At the time, the state parole board interpreted the pertinent statutes to
1
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-
2
require mandatory release on parole after an inmate served about half his
sentence, considering the inmate’s good-time and earned-time credits, for crimes
like Mr. Bush’s committed between July 1, 1979, and July 1, 1985. Under this
interpretation Mr. Bush’s anticipated release date was in 1997. The parole board
later changed its view, however, reading the same statutory scheme to except sex
offenses from the requirements pertaining to mandatory parole. See generally
Cunningham v. Diesslin , 92 F.3d 1054, 1056-57 & nn.2-3 (10th Cir. 1996);
Lustgarden v. Gunter , 966 F.2d 552, 553 n.2 (10th Cir. 1992). In November 1994
the parole board informed Mr. Bush that under the new interpretation his
projected release date is in 2016, based on this sentence and the sentence for a
prior conviction.
Mr. Bush’s state-court motion for post-conviction relief was denied by the
state trial and appellate courts. He then filed his § 2254 application. The federal
district court denied relief and this court granted a COA on the issue stated above.
We deny a COA on the remaining issues. We need not address Respondents’
contention that the claim on which we have granted a COA is procedurally barred,
“because the case may be more easily and succinctly affirmed on the merits.”
Romero v. Furlong , 215 F.3d 1107, 1111 (10th Cir. 2000).
-3-
3
Standards of Review
A state court’s adjudication on the merits must be upheld by a federal court
unless it (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to or an unreasonable
application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme
Court, or (2) resulted in a decision based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The
state court’s factual findings are presumed correct and must be credited unless the
applicant produces clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption. Id.
§ 2254(e)(1).
A state-court decision is contrary to established federal law under
§ 2254(d)(1) “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by
[the Supreme Court] on a question of law or if the state court decides a case
differently than [the Supreme Court] has on a set of materially indistinguishable
facts.” Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000). A state-court decision
is an unreasonable application of federal law under § 2254(d)(1) “if the state
court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court’s]
decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s
case.” Id. at 413. What is “reasonable” is determined under an objective test
rather than by, say, determining whether a judge somewhere has so ruled. See id.
at 409-10.
-4-
4
Analysis
Mr. Bush asserts that he is entitled to relief because his guilty plea was
based on his understanding, confirmed by his attorney, that he would be eligible
for mandatory parole after serving half his sentence. We disagree. To begin
with, Mr. Bush cannot rely on any breach of promise. The plea agreement does
not contain any promise of mandatory parole. Nor did the state trial court
promise Mr. Bush that he would serve only half the sentence. In fact, before
accepting his guilty pleas the state trial court asked Mr. Bush if anyone had
promised him anything that was not contained in the written plea stipulation,
other than the representations made on the record that two other jurisdictions
would run any sentences they might impose concurrently with the sentence
imposed in this case. He responded that no other promises had been made.
“Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.”
Blackledge v. Allison , 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977).
Even if Mr. Bush’s attorney had advised him that he would receive
mandatory parole, that advice would not bind the prosecution. Lustgarden , 966
F.2d at 555. And “the fact that the Parole Board had previously misapplied the
statute does not constitute [a] promise.” Id.
Nor does Mr. Bush’s misunderstanding undermine the validity of his plea.
“It is well settled that a voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty made by an
-5-
5
accused person, who has been advised by competent counsel, may not be
collaterally attacked.” Mabry v. Johnson , 467 U.S. 504, 508 (1984). A guilty
plea, “perfectly valid when made,” will not be set aside due to later changes in the
law. McMann v. Richardson , 397 U.S. 759, 773-74 (1970). The defendant
“assumes the risk of ordinary error in either his or his attorney’s assessment of the
law and facts.” Id. at 774. See Bailey v. Cowley , 914 F.2d 1438, 1441 (10th Cir.
1990) (per curiam) (“[W]hen a defendant pleads guilty, he makes a decision based
on a calculated risk that the consequences that will flow from entering the guilty
plea will be more favorable than those that would flow from going to trial. This
inherent uncertainty does not make the plea involuntary.”).
As we said in Cunningham ,“a defendant’s understanding he will serve less
than his full sentence does not alone render his guilty plea constitutionally infirm.
The defendant’s belief must be based upon some other additional factor, such as
coercion or material misrepresentation by the prosecutor.” 92 F.3d at 1061
(citation omitted). In Cunningham , as is alleged by Mr. Bush in this case, the
defendant’s attorney told him that mandatory parole would apply to him.
Cunningham might be distinguished because “the habeas court . . . found that
Cunningham did not rely on that advice when he accepted the plea,” whereas here
Mr. Bush asserts that he did rely on his attorney’s advice that mandatory parole
would apply to him. Nevertheless, this reliance is not enough for him to prevail.
-6-
6
“Although [a defendant] might have pleaded differently had later decided
cases then been the law, he is bound by his plea and his conviction unless he can
allege and prove serious derelictions on the part of counsel sufficient to show that
his plea was not, after all, a knowing and intelligent act.” McMann , 397 U.S. at
774. “When an involuntariness claim rests on the faulty legal decisions or
predictions of defense counsel, the plea will be deemed constitutionally
involuntary only when the attorney is held to have been constitutionally
ineffective.” Worthen v. Meachum , 842 F.2d 1179, 1184 (10th Cir. 1988),
overruled on other grounds by Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722 (1991).
Mr. Bush suggests no reason why his counsel was ineffective in relying on the
then-current practice of the parole board regarding awards of good time and
earned time. Accordingly, we hold that even if Mr. Bush relied on his attorney’s
mistaken (but not constitutionally defective) advice that mandatory parole would
apply to him, his guilty plea was not involuntary.
Conclusion
The state court’s decision to deny Mr. Bush post-conviction relief was
objectively reasonable in light of Supreme Court precedent. We therefore
AFFIRM the district court’s order denying the § 2254 application. Mr. Bush has
filed a motion to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees. The motion is
GRANTED. Mr. Bush is reminded that he is obligated to continue
-7-
7
making partial payments until the entire fee has been paid.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
-8-
8