# Michael Brown v. John Salazar

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 5, 2011 · 431 F. App'x 579

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/216249

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael Francis BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John SALAZAR, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 5, 2011
- **Citations:** 431 F. App'x 579
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Rymer, Thomas, Paez
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/216249

## Opinion text

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 05 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL FRANCIS BROWN, No. 08-56548

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:06-cv-01441-AG-PJW

v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOHN SALAZAR, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2011 **

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Michael Francis Brown appeals from the district

court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we vacate and remand.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Brown contends that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary because it

was induced by a misrepresentation that he would receive a sentence of no more

than five years in prison. He argues that the 20-year prison sentence he received

violates his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and that the case should be

remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Brown has never received an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of his

guilty plea, despite providing: (1) detailed allegations in his pro se habeas petitions

to the California Supreme Court and the District Court, (2) supporting declarations

from three attorneys who witnessed the underlying events, (3) a corroborating

letter from his trial court counsel, and (4) requests for an evidentiary hearing with

each habeas petition he filed.

If true, Brown’s allegations are sufficient to warrant habeas relief. An

involuntary guilty plea is “a constitutionally inadequate basis for imprisonment.”

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 (1977). Accordingly, the California

Supreme Court’s summary denial of Brown’s petition was an unreasonable

application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Court. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. __ (2011); see also Blackledge, 431 U.S.

at 75-76; Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 493 (1962).

2 0 8 -5 6 5 4 8
The district court abused its discretion by denying Brown’s habeas petition

without an evidentiary hearing on the voluntariness of his plea. See Earp v.

Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1167 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[W]here the petitioner establishes

a colorable claim for relief and has never been afforded a state or federal hearing

on this claim, we must remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.”);

see also Chizen v. Hunter, 809 F.2d 560, 561-62 (9th Cir. 1987).

VACATED AND REMANDED.

3 0 8 -5 6 5 4 8

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/216249. Public record. Not legal advice.