Rios v. Frauenheim

Background

Ulysses Alexander Rios filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2013 California criminal judgment. He had pleaded no contest to forcible rape, simple kidnapping, and assault with intent to commit rape. The trial court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 15 years. Rios was represented by trial counsel Phong Do and later appointed appellate counsel.

Before sentencing, Rios asked to withdraw his plea and sought replacement of Do as his lawyer. He asserted that Do had pressured him to accept the plea, failed to provide complete police reports and a preliminary-hearing transcript, failed to investigate inconsistencies and possible defense witnesses, misrepresented the sentence he might face at trial, had a conflict of interest, and failed to represent him adequately during the hearing on those requests. The trial court denied the request for replacement counsel and proceeded to sentence Rios under the plea agreement.

The state appellate court affirmed the judgment. Rios later filed several state petitions, which were summarily denied, and then filed the operative second amended federal petition. The opinion states that Scott Frauenheim, the previous warden named as respondent, was replaced on the docket by Ron Godwin, the current acting warden.

Claims and legal standard

Rios raised two claims: ineffective assistance of trial counsel and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Under the federal standard for reviewing a state conviction, relief was available only if the state courts’ decisions contradicted clearly established Supreme Court law, unreasonably applied that law, or rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

For ineffective assistance of counsel, the court applied the two-part test from Strickland v. Washington: Rios had to show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the error probably affected the result. For a challenge to a plea, he also had to show a reasonable probability that, without counsel’s errors, he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial.

Trial-counsel claim

The court rejected Rios’s claim that Do coerced him into accepting the plea. Rios did not identify threats or pressure rising to the level of a constitutional violation. During the plea hearing, Rios told the trial court that he had enough time to discuss the charges and possible defenses with Do, that he was pleading freely and voluntarily, and that no one was forcing him to plead. The court concluded that the state court reasonably determined that the plea was not coerced.

The court also rejected the discovery claim. At the hearing on replacement counsel, Do testified that a redacted police report had been sent to Rios and that they reviewed the reports together during multiple visits. The court found that Rios’s generalized assertion that he had not received discovery did not overcome that testimony or establish that his plea was involuntary.

The court rejected the claim that Do misrepresented Rios’s potential sentence at trial. The court explained that the charges, rather than Rios’s belief that he could prove his innocence, determined his sentencing exposure. Rios did not identify a specific inaccurate statement by Do. The court further concluded that, given the evidence from two victims who testified at the preliminary hearing, Rios could not show that different advice would probably have caused him to reject the plea.

The court considered Rios’s argument that Do inadequately investigated inconsistencies between a police report and preliminary-hearing testimony. The actual police reports were not in the federal record, although the court acknowledged that the record appeared to show some inconsistent comment in a report. The court concluded that Do had accounted for the issue in his investigation, cross-examination, plea negotiations, and advice. It noted that the prosecutor’s offer decreased from more than 30 years to 15 years after the preliminary hearing and held that the state court reasonably credited Do’s testimony.

The court also rejected Rios’s claim concerning defense witnesses. Rios identified witnesses who might have testified about the second victim’s time at a friend’s house and her apparent mental state. The court stated that such testimony might have been useful if the case had gone to trial, but would not have changed Do’s plea advice or made it likely that Rios would have rejected the plea.

The court found no constitutionally significant conflict of interest. It explained that the alleged conflict arising from Do’s need to respond to Rios’s accusations occurred after the plea and therefore did not undermine the plea’s voluntariness. Rios’s assertion that Do was not prepared for trial also did not establish an actual conflict, particularly because Rios had not told Do that he intended to go to trial.

Finally, the court rejected Rios’s claim that Do abandoned him during the hearing on replacing counsel. The court explained that the judge, not separate counsel, was required to investigate Rios’s concerns. The record showed that Do was not antagonistic at the hearing, and the state appellate court reasonably credited Do’s statements. Rios’s first claim was therefore denied on the merits.

Appellate-counsel claim

Rios argued that his appellate lawyer was ineffective for failing to raise the trial-counsel issues on appeal. The court held that Rios could not show either deficient performance or prejudice. Because the trial-counsel claims lacked merit, Rios could not show that he would have prevailed had appellate counsel raised them in a merits brief. The court therefore denied the second claim on the merits.

Disposition

The court denied the petition, denied Rios’s request for an evidentiary hearing, and denied a certificate of appealability. It explained that Rios had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied or shown that reasonable judges would debate the court’s assessment. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the respondent, close the file, and substitute Ron Godwin for Scott Frauenheim as respondent.