Torres v. Kernan

Background

Mario Torres, a former state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person held under a state judgment to seek federal relief for violations of federal law. Torres had been charged in several California criminal cases. After a jury conviction in one case was reversed, the cases were resolved through a February 2015 plea agreement. Torres received a six-year prison sentence in one case, with concurrent terms in the others.

An abstract of judgment incorrectly stated that the terms in one case would run consecutively rather than concurrently. The state court later issued a corrected abstract showing concurrent terms. Torres was released from prison on November 14, 2018. The opinion states that the underlying convictions were not relevant to this petition and focuses on the procedural history and the claims concerning the judgment documents.

Torres had previously filed a federal petition raising several of the same claims. In the earlier round of this case, the court denied the claims on the merits, the Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability, and the Supreme Court denied review. Torres then filed this petition, which was stayed for exhaustion of state remedies. The court later related this case to another federal habeas proceeding, treated that proceeding’s petition as an amended petition, and considered the additional claims.

Standard of Review

Under the federal law governing challenges to state convictions and sentences, a federal court generally may grant relief only if the state court’s decision was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law, unreasonably applied that law, or rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts. The federal court may not grant relief merely because it would have reached a different conclusion; the state court’s decision must be objectively unreasonable.

Claims and Rulings

Plea agreement and corrected judgment

Torres argued that the incorrect statement that his prison terms would run consecutively violated his plea agreement and that correcting the abstract of judgment was an improper resentencing. The court stated that the agreement was initially violated by the error, but that the later correction to concurrent terms gave Torres specific performance—the remedy requiring the agreement to be carried out. The court therefore held that the state court’s rejection of this claim was not objectively unreasonable and denied the claim.

Torres also argued that he was not informed of, or present for, the correction of the abstract of judgment, violating due process. The court held that he had not shown that the state court unreasonably applied Supreme Court authority. This claim was denied.

Restitution

Torres argued that the restitution order in the corrected abstract violated due process and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review this claim through a § 2254 petition because changing or eliminating a money judgment would not directly affect the duration of his custody. The court therefore denied the claim on that basis. It also stated that, even assuming jurisdiction existed, Torres had acknowledged when entering his plea that he would be required to pay appropriate restitution.

Ineffective assistance and disclosure claims

Torres’s remaining claims alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and violations under Brady v. Maryland, which concerns the prosecution’s disclosure obligations. The court stated that these claims had been dismissed on the merits in the earlier round of this case. Relying on the reasons given there, the court again denied the claims without further analysis.

Certificate of Appealability and Disposition

The court denied a certificate of appealability because none of the claims made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The court vacated its prior order denying the petition, denied the petition on the merits, stated that the order resolved all of Torres’s claims, denied the certificate of appealability, and directed the clerk to close the file. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.