Gabriel Barrios v. Debra Dexter

MEMORANDUM

Gabriel Barrios appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm in part and remand in part for an evidentiary hearing.

We address two claims from Barrios’s habeas petition: a claim that Barrios’s guilty plea in state court was involuntary, and a claim that Barrios’s trial counsel was ineffective in advising him to plead guilty. The parties agree that the involuntariness claim is reviewed de novo because a discretionary summary denial from the California Supreme Court is not a “decision on the merits” under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). See Williams v. Cavazos, 646 F.3d 626, 636 (9th Cir.2011) cert. granted in part, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1088 , 181 L.Ed.2d 806 (2012). Barrios’s ineffective assistance claim, however, is governed by AEDPA.

a. Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel

We review de novo the district court’s denial of a § 2254 petition. Gonzalez v. Knowles, 515 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir. 2008). Under § 2254(d) as modified by AEDPA, petitions adjudicated on the merits by a state court may only be granted if the state court adjudication…