Murphy v. Shanks ( 1998 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 4 1998
TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
NATHANIEL F. MURPHY, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 97-2218
(D.C. No. CIV 95-694-SC/RLP)
JOHN SHANKS, Warden; (New Mexico)
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BRORBY and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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, or 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.
Nathaniel Murphy filed a request for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2254, asserting that a plea agreement disposing of several state charges against
him violated his constitutional rights with respect to the effective assistance of
counsel and double jeopardy. The district court adopted the report of the
magistrate judge recommending that relief be denied. The court also denied Mr.
Murphy’s request for a certificate of appealability, which we construe as a denial
of a certificate of probable cause. 1 As we discuss briefly below, we likewise
conclude that Mr. Murphy has failed to make the requisite showing for a
certificate of probable cause. Accordingly, we deny his application and dismiss
his appeal.
Mr. Murphy was charged in state court in Bernalillo County with multiple
counts of burglary and forgery and two counts of receiving stolen goods. As a
repeat offender, Mr. Murphy faced the possibility of more than 190 years of
1
Mr. Murphy filed his habeas petition in 1995, before the Antiterrorist and
Effective Death Penalty Act was signed into law on April 24, 1996. The new Act
requires that a state habeas petitioner who wishes to appeal must obtain a
certificate of appealability, which issues on a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). We have held that the new Act
does not apply to habeas petitions filed before the Act’s effective date. Edens v.
Hannigan, 87 F.3d 1109, 1112 n.1 (10th Cir. 1996). Prior to the Act, a state
habeas petitioner who wished to appeal was required to obtain a certificate of
probable cause, which in turn required the petitioner to make a substantial
showing of the denial of a federal right. See Lennox v. Evans, 87 F.3d 431, 433
(10th Cir. 1996). We therefore construe Mr. Murphy’s request for a certificate of
appealability as a request for a certificate of probable cause.
-2-
incarceration if convicted of all the offenses. Upon advice of counsel, Mr.
Murphy entered into a plea agreement under which he agreed to waive all
constitutional defects and the State agreed to a sentence cap of eleven years
incarceration. Mr. Murphy received a sentence of nineteen years, eight of which
were suspended in accordance with the agreement.
Mr. Murphy subsequently filed a state petition for habeas corpus relief,
asserting that the plea agreement violated his double jeopardy rights because at
the time he entered into the agreement he had already pled guilty in Sandoval
County to a count of receiving the same stolen property that was among the
charges disposed of in the agreement. The state court agreed with Mr. Murphy
and reduced his sentence from nineteen to seventeen-and-one-half years to reflect
the deletion of the eighteen-month sentence for the duplicative charge, a fourth
degree felony. The state court kept Mr. Murphy’s term of incarceration at eleven
years, however, based on his extensive prior criminal history, the very favorable
plea bargain obtained by his counsel, and the fact that if Mr. Murphy had gone to
trial as an habitual offender and been convicted, he could have received a
sentence of over 190 years.
In his federal habeas petition, Mr. Murphy asserted that the state court
finding of a double jeopardy violation vitiated the entire plea agreement as a
matter of state law. The magistrate judge pointed out that only federal
-3-
constitutional claims are cognizable in an action under section 2254, and that
because Mr. Murphy’s sentence was reduced to eliminate the constitutionally
impermissible multiple punishment resulting from the double jeopardy violation,
Mr. Murphy had already received the only constitutional remedy to which he was
entitled for that claim.
Mr. Murphy also asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel
in the state court plea proceedings because his counsel had not discovered the
prior plea in Sandoval County before Mr. Murphy entered into the agreement at
issue here. The magistrate rejected this claim, holding that even if Mr. Murphy’s
counsel had been ineffective in failing to discover the earlier plea, Mr. Murphy
had failed to show prejudice from the failure. We agree.
A defendant who seeks to challenge the validity of a guilty plea on the
ground of ineffective assistance of counsel “must show that there is a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and
would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985).
Mr. Murphy has failed to make such a showing. We find no reason to believe that
Mr. Murphy would have insisted on going to trial to face a possible sentence of
188 years when he accepted a plea agreement to avoid facing a possible sentence
of 190 years. We likewise do not believe the elimination of the duplicative count
would have led counsel to change her recommendation that Mr. Murphy accept
-4-
the plea. See id. at 59-60. Indeed, Mr. Murphy has not requested that his plea be
vacated so that he can proceed to trial, nor has he asserted that he would not have
pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. 2
We conclude that Mr. Murphy has failed to make a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right. We therefore DENY his application for a
certificate of probable cause and DISMISS his appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephanie K. Seymour
Chief Judge
2
Mr. Murphy seeks an opportunity to renegotiate his plea as an alternative
to proceeding to trial. Even if we were inclined to hold that the requisite
prejudice could be established by showing a reasonable probability that the State
would renegotiate and agree to a plea more favorable to Mr. Murphy, he cannot
show such a reasonable probability given the state court’s conclusion that a
reduction in Mr. Murphy’s already favorable term of incarceration was not
warranted upon elimination of the duplicative charge.
-5-