From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. State of N.M

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Dec 27, 1993
12 F.3d 175 (10th Cir. 1993)

Summary

recognizing that "only breaches of material promises will allow a court to conclude that a plea was involuntarily induced and thus constitutionally infirm"

Summary of this case from St. James v. People

Opinion

No. 93-2128.

December 27, 1993.

Richard J. Knowles, Albuquerque, NM, for petitioner-appellant.

Margaret McLean, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Tom Udall, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, NM, for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument.


Petitioner-appellant Eugenio Lopez Rodriguez appeals from the district court's denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing and subsequent dismissal of his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 2253, and we affirm.

In an attempt to collaterally attack the presumptive voluntariness of his plea, see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 1629, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977), Mr. Lopez asserts by affidavit that the government breached a promise, undisclosed on the record of the plea proceedings, of an unsupervised conjugal visit. Although promises made by prosecuting attorneys "must be fulfilled to maintain the integrity of the plea," United States v. Hand, 913 F.2d 854, 856 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 499, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971)), only breaches of material promises will allow a court to conclude that a plea was involuntarily induced and thus constitutionally infirm. United States v. Pollard, 959 F.2d 1011, 1028 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 322, 121 L.Ed.2d 242 (1992). As in contract, the terms of a plea agreement and their relative materiality are evaluated by an objective standard. See McKenzie v. Risley, 801 F.2d 1519, 1526-27 (9th Cir. 1986), vacated in part on other grounds, 842 F.2d 1525 (9th Cir. 1988) (en banc). In light of the significant benefits Mr. Lopez did receive as a result of his plea agreement, including the avoidance of a possible death sentence, the alleged breach of a promise of a conjugal visit did not deprive the agreement of its voluntary character. Because Mr. Lopez has failed to "allege facts which, if proven, would entitle him to relief," Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312, 83 S.Ct. 745, 757, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), the district court did not err in denying his request for an evidentiary hearing and dismissing the petition.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. State of N.M

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Dec 27, 1993
12 F.3d 175 (10th Cir. 1993)

recognizing that "only breaches of material promises will allow a court to conclude that a plea was involuntarily induced and thus constitutionally infirm"

Summary of this case from St. James v. People
Case details for

Rodriguez v. State of N.M

Case Details

Full title:EUGENIO LOPEZ RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Date published: Dec 27, 1993

Citations

12 F.3d 175 (10th Cir. 1993)

Citing Cases

Payne v. LeMaster

That is, there is no relief unless the promise at issue was "material" and, "[a]s in contract, the terms of a…

Browning v. State

Indeed, only "breaches of material promises" allow "a court to conclude that a plea was involuntarily induced…