Waterhouse v. Hatch ( 2012 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT October 5, 2012
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
RICHARD WATERHOUSE,
PetitionerAppellant,
v. No. 12-2096
(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-00685-JB-CG)
TIMOTHY HATCH, Warden, (D.N.M.)
RespondentAppellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*
Before LUCERO, O’BRIEN, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Richard Waterhouse, a New Mexico state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a
certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 habeas petition. We deny a COA and dismiss the appeal.
I
In 2002, Waterhouse was indicted on three counts of criminal sexual penetration
of a minor in the first degree and one count of intimidation of a witness in the third
*
This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
degree. He pled guilty to two counts of criminal sexual penetration in the second degree
pursuant to the plea agreement. Under that agreement, the district attorney dismissed the
remaining claims, and reduced Waterhouse’s potential prison term from over 103.5 years
to twenty-six years. Waterhouse was sentenced to twenty-two years’ imprisonment with
four years suspended. The New Mexico Court of Appeals dismissed Waterhouse’s direct
appeal, and the New Mexico Supreme Court quashed a writ of certiorari after initially
granting it.
Waterhouse timely filed a § 2254 habeas petition, asserting ineffective assistance
of counsel due to the failure of various court-appointed attorneys to investigate his case,
and to correctly advise him of his sentencing exposure. Waterhouse’s petition was
reviewed by a magistrate judge, who recommended that the petition be denied because
Waterhouse failed to show that he would have declined the state’s plea offer but for his
attorneys’ errors. Over Waterhouse’s objections, the district court adopted the magistrate
judge’s recommendations and dismissed the petition.
II
A petitioner may not appeal the denial of habeas relief under § 2254 without a
COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). We will grant a COA only if Waterhouse shows “that
reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should
have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
–2–
(2000) (quotations omitted). To prevail on the merits, Waterhouse must demonstrate that
the state court’s adjudication of his claims either “resulted in a decision that was based on
an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented” or was
“contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.”
§ 2254(d)(1), (2).
We are in substantial agreement with the reasoning of the district court and
conclude that reasonable jurists could not debate its rulings. To succeed on an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim, a litigant must show that his counsel’s performance fell
below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there was a reasonable probability
that his counsel’s deficiencies influenced the outcome of the proceeding. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). However, when “a defendant complains that
ineffective assistance led him to accept a plea offer as opposed to proceeding to trial, the
defendant will have to show ‘a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he
would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.’” Missouri v.
Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1409 (2012) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985)).
On appeal, Waterhouse advances several arguments. First, he contends that his
counsel failed to discover “valuable exculpatory facts.” Waterhouse alleges that the
victim told inconsistent stories about the molestation, that the victim’s mother eventually
doubted her daughter’s version of events, and that he could not have had access to the
victim during the time indicated in the indictment because he lacked custody of the
–3–
victim. However, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that Waterhouse has not
demonstrated prejudice. He has not shown that “but for counsel’s errors, he would not
have pleaded guilty.” Hill, 474 U.S. at 58 (quotation omitted).
Second, Waterhouse argues that the district court erred in concluding that his
counsel’s failure to secure expert testimony was not prejudicial. Had counsel consulted
with an expert witness regarding the victim’s credibility, Waterhouse claims, they would
have discovered her “truth-telling problem” and motives to fabricate charges against
Waterhouse. While this failure may have constituted deficient performance under
Strickland, we agree with the district court in its determination that the potential value of
such expert testimony would be speculative. See Boyle v. McKune, 544 F.3d 1132,
1138-39 (10th Cir. 2008) (claim that medical experts could have refuted evidence of non-
consensual sexual contact is too speculative to demonstrate prejudice).
Finally, Waterhouse contends that the district court ignored evidence of prejudice
due to severe understaffing at the Public Defender’s office and his counsel’s erroneous
sentencing advice. Waterhouse’s counsel incorrectly informed him that the Earned
Meritorious Deduction Act, N.M. Stat. § 33-2-34 (“EDMA”) would not apply to his
sentence, and that Waterhouse would serve only fifty percent of his sentence, rather than
the eighty-five percent actually required. Despite the clear error of this advice, the state
court reasonably concluded that accurate advice about EDMA would not have changed
Waterhouse’s decision to plead guilty. Offering only conclusory statements that he
–4–
would not have pled guilty but for the information about EDMA, Waterhouse fails to
overcome the deference we owe to the state court’s determination. See § 2254(d).
III
We DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
–5–