Ellawendy v. Monterey County Superior Court

Background

Abdelfatah Ellawendy, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the voluntariness of his 2019 plea agreement. In November 2018, Monterey County charged him with stalking, assault-related offenses, and dissuading a witness. In April 2019, he pleaded no contest to assault with a deadly weapon under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1). The state court sentenced him to two years in prison in May 2019.

Ellawendy also pleaded no contest in a separate Monterey County case to distributing an intimate image. The opinion states that he did not challenge the voluntariness of that separate plea. On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal found no arguable issues and affirmed the judgment. The California Supreme Court later denied review without explanation. The federal court therefore reviewed the state appellate court’s reasoning as the relevant state-court decision.

After an initial review, the federal court dismissed all claims except the challenge to the voluntary nature of the assault plea. The respondent filed an answer addressing that remaining claim, and Ellawendy filed a response.

Claim and governing standard

Ellawendy argued that his plea was involuntary or uninformed because the prosecutor allegedly threatened him with a life sentence, he was not told the charges or possible punishment, law-enforcement agents allegedly harassed and discriminated against him and his family, the judge allegedly threatened to increase the charges if he went to trial, and his public defender allegedly failed to explain the charge and consequences of the plea.

A plea must be knowing and voluntary because it gives up constitutional rights, including the rights to a jury trial, to confront witnesses, and against self-incrimination. Under § 2254, a federal court may grant relief after a state court has decided a constitutional claim on the merits only if the state decision was contrary to clearly established United States Supreme Court law, unreasonably applied that law, or rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

Court’s analysis

The plea-hearing transcript showed that Ellawendy was told he was pleading no contest to a felony under Penal Code § 245(a)(1), that the expected sentence would not exceed two years, and that the offense was a strike. He acknowledged that he understood the plea terms, possible defenses, constitutional rights, and consequences of changing his plea. He also denied being threatened or coerced.

The written plea agreement likewise identified the charge and maximum two-year sentence. It stated that Ellawendy understood the agreement and its consequences. His attorney attested that he had explained the plea, and an Arabic interpreter stated that the form had been translated fully and that Ellawendy said he understood it.

Judge Freeman concluded that counsel’s advice about the risks of going to trial and benefits of the agreement was not a threat. The court also concluded that the transcript and written agreement contradicted Ellawendy’s claim that he did not understand the plea. His later assertions did not overcome the strong presumption that his statements in open court were truthful.

Disposition

The court DENIED the petition. It also DENIED a Certificate of Appealability because Ellawendy had not made the required showing that a constitutional right was denied or that reasonable judges could debate the court’s decision. The Clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, enter judgment for the respondent, and close the file.