Armando Ybarra v. M. Stainer

MEMORANDUM *

Armando Ybarra appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Ybarra’s petition challenges the use of his 1998 conviction of dissuading a witness, in violation of California Penal Code § 136.1, as a strike prior for purposes of California’s three strikes law, CalPenal Code §§ 667(b)-(i), 1170.12. Ybarra argues that his 1998 plea agreement provided that the two offenses to which he was pleading guilty could not be charged as strike priors at any time in the future notwithstanding any changes in the law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Ybarra claims that the California Court of Appeal’s decision upholding the denial of his motion for specific performance of the 1998 plea agreement was contrary to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1 , 5 n. 3, 107 S.Ct. 2680 , 97 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987) (holding that the interpretation of a state court plea agreement is, “within broad bounds of reasonableness, [a] matter[ ] of state law”). We disagree. Although the Court of Appeal’s decision does not explicitly recite principles of California contract *714 law, it concludes,…

dissenting:

Because I would reverse the district court with instructions to grant the petition, I respectfully dissent.

I would not accord AEDPA deference to the state court decision. The state court did not analyze the plea agreement pursu *715 ant to state contract law, as required under clearly established federal law. Buckley v. Terhune, 441 F.3d 688, 695 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc). I therefore would review the petition de novo. .

California contract law provides three steps for construing a plea agreement. First, we look to the plain meaning of the language in the agreement. Id. (citing Cal. Civ.Code §§ 1638, 1644). The majority found the phrase “not a strike” ambiguous, and I agree.

Having found the disputed term ambiguous, we must next look to Ybarra’s objectively reasonable expectations in accepting the plea agreement. Id. As part of this inquiry, we must consider “not a strike” in the context of the entire plea agreement and in light of the relevant surrounding circumstances. Id. at 698. It is here that my views diverge from those of the majority-

Looking at the plea agreement as a whole, I read “not a strike” to mean that Ybarra would not sustain any strikes from his…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 03 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ARMANDO YBARRA, No. 12-56901

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:11-cv-01837-PSG-PJW

v.

MEMORANDUM*

M. D. STAINER,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 3, 2015 Pasadena, California

Before: D.W. NELSON, BYBEE, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Armando Ybarra appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus

petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Ybarra’s petition challenges the use of his

1998 conviction of dissuading a witness, in violation of California Penal Code

§ 136.1, as a strike prior for purposes of California’s three strikes law, Cal. Penal

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Code §§ 667(b)–(i), 1170.12. Ybarra argues that his 1998 plea agreement provided

that the two offenses to which he was…