Ackerman v. Obenland ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 Jonathan E Ackerman, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05110-JCC-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER 12 v. 13 Mike Obenland, 14 Respondent. 15 16 The District Court has referred this action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United States 17 Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Petitioner initiated this action challenging his state court 18 convictions and sentence. See Dkt. 1, 3. After review of the record, the Court directs Respondent 19 to file a supplemental state court record and answer. 20 Petitioner is in custody under a state court judgment and sentence imposed for his 21 conviction by guilty plea on one count of murder in the second degree. Dkt. 9, Exhibit 1, 22 Judgment and Sentence, Thurston County Cause No. 16-1-01859-34. Petitioner raises one 23 ground for relief alleging his due process rights were violated because the prosecutor’s 24 statements during sentencing breached the plea agreement to recommend a 240-month sentence. 1 Dkt. 3. On April 15, 2021, Respondent filed, and served on Petitioner, an Answer. Dkt. 8, 9. 2 Respondent concedes the Petition is timely and that Petitioner exhausted his state court remedies. 3 Dkt. 8 at 6. Respondent asserts the state court’s adjudication of the sole ground raised in the 4 Petition was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. 5 Dkt. 8. 6 In general, considerations of fundamental fairness require that “when a plea rests in any 7 significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of 8 the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New York, 404 9 U.S. 257, 262 (1971); accord Gunn v. Ignacio, 263 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 2001); United States 10 v. Mondragon, 228 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 2000). To determine whether a plea agreement has 11 been breached, courts consider what was “reasonably understood” by a defendant “when he 12 entered his plea of guilty.” Gunn, 263 F.3d at 970; United States v. Serrano, 938 F.2d 1058, 1061 13 (9th Cir. 1991). “[T]he construction of the plea agreement and the concomitant obligations 14 flowing therefrom are, within broad bounds of reasonableness, matters of state law.” Ricketts v. 15 Adamson, 483 U.S. 1,5 n. 3 (1987). 16 The Court has reviewed the Answer and finds relevant portions of the state court record, 17 including the plea agreement, were not included in state court record provided to the Court. See 18 Dkt. 8, 9. In order for the Court to properly consider the merits of Petitioner’s sole ground for 19 relief, the Court must review the plea agreement. 20 Therefore, the Court directs Respondent to file a supplemental state court record on or 21 before July 16, 2021. The supplemental state court record should include the plea agreement and 22 any additional state court records relevant to this Court’s determination. Respondent may also file 23 a supplemental answer limited to five pages addressing the supplemental state court record on or 24 1 before July 16, 2021. Petitioner may file a supplemental traverse addressing only the supplemental 2 state court record and Respondent’s supplemental answer limited to five pages on or before July 3 30, 2021. Respondent may file a supplemental reply on or before August 6, 2021. 4 The Clerk of Court is directed to re-note the Petition (Dkt. 3) for consideration on August 5 6, 2021. 6 Dated this 10th day of June, 2021. 7 A 8 David W. Christel 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24