F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
June 9, 2006
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JO H N D . C LA RK ,
Petitioner-A ppellant,
v. No. 05-6153
(D.C. No. CIV-04-739-L)
M IKE M ULLINS, W arden, (W .D. Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before H E N RY, BR ISC OE, and M U RPH Y, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a district court judgment denying Petitioner-
Appellant John D. Clark habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. W e granted a
certificate of appealability to review whether Clark’s guilty plea was knowing and
voluntary as to the maximum possible sentences he was facing. For the reasons
expressed below, we affirm.
*
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. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
B ACKGROUND
In April 2002, after three prior felony convictions, Clark pleaded guilty to
eleven felony and three misdemeanor counts in three O klahoma criminal cases:
• Case No. CF-2000-41 (possessing a controlled dangerous substance
(CDS) with intent to distribute, maintaining a vehicle for keeping or
selling a CDS, driving under suspension, and unlawfully possessing
paraphernalia);
• Case No. CF-2000-53 (possessing a CDS near a public park,
possessing a firearm while committing a felony, possessing a firearm
after a felony conviction, and unlawfully possessing paraphernalia);
and
• Case No. CF-2001-594 (shooting with intent to kill, shooting with
intent to kill, possessing a firearm after conviction, unlawfully using
a police radio, possessing a CDS, and possessing a sawed-off
shotgun).
During the plea colloquy, Clark indicated that he and his attorney had
“go[ne] through” a “Plea of Guilty Summary of Facts” form. Relevant State
Court Records, Ex. 1 at 5; id., Ex. 7 at 1. Among other things, the form listed the
criminal counts, recited that there was no plea agreement, and explained the
constitutional rights that Clark was giving up by pleading guilty. The form also
contained a section for the “range of punishment for the crime(s),” which had
only four lines of blanks to be completed showing the minimum and maximum
terms of imprisonment. Id., Ex. 7 at 2. Clark’s attorney completed the section,
apparently attempting to fit in the sentencing ranges for the five felonies and
three m isdemeanors in C ase N os. CF-2000-41 and CF-2000-53. As shown below ,
line one reads, “M inimum of 20yrs to a maximum of and/or a fine . . . ,”
-2-
which is near “CTS I, II & III” and “CF 2000-53.” Id. Near the notation “CF
200[0]-41,” line two reads, “M inimum of 20yrs to a maximum of 1yr and/or a
fine . . . ,” and is preceded by various count numbers that we cannot positively
discern. Id. Lines three and four read, “M inimum of to a maximum of 1yr
and/or a fine . . . .” Id. The full section reads:
Id.
In the bottom margin of the page, Clark’s attorney identified potential
sentences for the CF-2001-594 counts: “CT I & II - not less than 20yrs”; “Count
III 3yrs to life”; “Count IV 4yrs to life”; “Count V 6 yrs to life”; “Count VI 6 yrs
to life.” Id. On the form’s third page, above Clark’s signature, a checkmark
appears next to the form’s language, “M y attorney completed this form and we
have gone over the form and I understand its contents and agree with the
answers.” Id., Ex. 7 at 3.
In response to his attorney’s queries during the plea colloquy, Clark
indicated that he had signed the form and understood that there was no plea
-3-
agreement and would be no jury trial. The trial judge’s only inquiry before
accepting Clark’s plea was, “W hat about a factual basis to support all these
pleas?” Id., Ex. 1 at 6. In response, Clark’s attorney cited the probable cause
affidavits. The judge accepted Clark’s plea, ordered a presentencing investigation
report, and scheduled a sentencing date.
In August 2002, after receiving the report, which apparently
“recommend[ed] maximum incarceration,” id., Ex. 2 at 6, Clark moved to
withdraw his guilty plea. At the hearing on the motion, Clark was represented by
new counsel, who argued that Clark “did not understand that he could not
withdraw his plea at any time, did not realize that he was giving up his right to a
jury, and all other rights for that matter,” Id., Ex. 2 at 3, “did not understand his
right to a preliminary hearing,” id. at 5, and that his “misunderstanding . . . would
rise to the level of coercion,” id. at 4. Clark’s attorney then asked him, “Does
that pretty much cover it?” Id. at 5. Clark had nothing to add. The court
summarily denied the motion and later sentenced Clark to 213 years in prison.
On appeal to the O klahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), Clark
argued through a new attorney that he was not advised of the consequences of
pleading guilty, including the punishment ranges. The OCCA summarily rejected
that argument. But the OCCA did reverse for lack of evidence Clark’s felony
conviction in Case No. CF-2000-41 for unlawfully maintaining a vehicle. Clark
v. O klahoma, Nos. C-2002-1188, C-2002-1190, C-2002-1191, slip op. at 2-3
-4-
(Okla. Crim. App. July 10, 2003) (summary opinion). Thus, only one felony
remained in CF-2000-41: possession of a CD S w ith intent to distribute.
Clark then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district
court, stating that he would not have pleaded guilty if he knew that he was facing
more than twenty years imprisonment. The district court denied relief, ruling that
[t]he circumstances surrounding [Clark’s] entry of his plea, including
the fact that the charges in Case Nos. CF-2000-41 and CF-2000-53
alleging the offenses were committed after three prior felony
convictions had been pending for over two years, that [Clark] had
been arraigned on the habitual offender charges in each of these
cases and had appeared in court with his attorney on numerous
occasions, and that [Clark] did not express any misunderstanding
concerning the maximum possible punishment for these habitual
offender charges, show that [Clark] understood the nature and
consequences of his plea and voluntarily entered the plea.
Aplt. App., Report & Recommendation at 18. 1
Clark appealed.
1
The district court did, however, characterize the state “trial judge’s failure
to advise [Clark] at the plea proceeding of the range of punishment for each of the
felony offenses in Case Nos. CF-2000-41 and CF-2000-53 . . . [as] troubling.”
Aplt. App., Report & Recommendation at 18. W e agree. A plea colloquy serves
as a constitutional shield, “protect[ing] the defendant from an unintelligent or
involuntary plea.” M itchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 322 (1999). Here, the
colloquy was nearly non-existent, with the state trial judge asking Clark only one
question. Nevertheless, our review of the record indicates that Clark’s plea was
not unintelligent or involuntary.
-5-
D ISCUSSION
I. Standards of Review
W e review the denial of federal habeas relief de novo, applying the same
standards used by the district court. Jackson v. Ray, 390 F.3d 1254, 1259
(10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 61 (2005). Under the A nti-Terrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA ), a federal court may not grant habeas
relief on a claim adjudicated on the m erits in state court, unless the state court
decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1), or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light
of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” id. § 2254(d)(2).
II. Due Process
A guilty plea is constitutionally tolerable, provided it “represents a
voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to
the defendant.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56 (1985) (quotation omitted). In
accepting a guilty plea, a trial court must make sure that the accused has a full
understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequences, including the
maximum penalty to which the accused may be exposed. See Boykin v. Alabam a,
395 U.S. 238, 243-44 (1969); Worthen v. M eachum, 842 F.2d 1179, 1182 (10th
Cir. 1988), overruled on other grounds, Coleman v. Thom pson, 501 U.S. 722
(1991). W hile an exhaustive exegesis on the merits of pleading guilty is not
-6-
mandated, see Henderson v. M organ, 426 U.S. 637, 647 n.18 (1976), “the record
must affirmatively disclose that a defendant who pleaded guilty entered his plea
understandingly and voluntarily,” Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 747 n.4
(1970). “Whether a plea is voluntary is a question of federal [due process] law ,
but this legal conclusion rests on factual findings and inferences from those
findings.” Fields v. Gibson, 277 F.3d 1203, 1212 (10th Cir. 2002).
W e conclude that the OCCA neither contravened or unreasonably applied
Supreme Court precedent nor employed an unreasonable factual determination in
rejecting Clark’s plea challenge. Clark’s failure to argue during the
plea-withdrawal hearing that he was unaware of the maximum possible sentences
suggests awareness of a substantial amount of prison time. Indeed, Clark had
earlier signed the plea form, admitting that he understood its contents. At the
very least, the form clearly shows that in Case No. CF-2001-594, Clark was
facing four felony counts, each carrying a possible life sentence, and two felony
counts for w hich the minimum sentences w ould each be twenty years. Thus, his
assertion that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known that he could
receive more than twenty years is specious.
Furthermore, line one in the range-of-punishment section could be read as
indicating a minimum of twenty years each for felony counts one, two, and three
in Case No. CF-2000-53, which are the sentences Clark ultimately received in that
case. The absence of a maximum term on line one reflects that Oklahoma’s
-7-
habitual offender statute recited no maximum penalty, see Okla. Stat. tit. 21, §
51.1(B) (Supp. 1999) (“Every person who, having been twice convicted of felony
offenses, commits a third, or thereafter, felony offenses . . . shall be punished by
imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of not less than twenty (20)
years.”). 2 As for Case No. CF-2000-41, line two’s “M inimum of 20yrs” would
accurately reflect the sentence Clark received on the only viable felony count in
that case. Line two’s further notation of “to a maximum of 1yr” indicates the
maximum possible sentence for one of the misdemeanor counts. Nothing in the
range-of-punishment section shows that Clark was not apprised of the sentences
he ultimately received. And given his silence at the plea-withdrawal hearing
about sentencing ranges, we conclude that Clark’s guilty plea was knowing and
voluntary for purposes of A ED PA.
The judgment of the district court is A FFIRM ED. Clark’s m otion to
proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Entered for the Court
M ichael R. M urphy
Circuit Judge
2
Section 51.1(B) was amended in 2001 to specify a maximum term of life
imprisonment.
-8-