Kenneth Hibbler v. James Benedetti, 693 F.3d 1140

Background

Hibbler violently attacked his daughter and himself; he faced charges including first-degree kidnapping with a deadly weapon, attempted murder with a deadly weapon, and battery with a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm.
A competency evaluation by Dr. Slagle in 2003 found Hibbler competent to stand trial and understand proceedings.
In 2005, Hibbler pled guilty to one count of child abuse/neglect with substantial bodily harm under a plea agreement for a 5–15 year term, with other charges dropped.
The plea agreement stated Hibbler understood sentencing consequences, waived certain rights, and discussed the plea with counsel; counsel certified Hibbler’s competence and understanding.
At the plea colloquy, the court ensured understanding of the plea and Alford procedure; Hibbler acknowledged understanding and directed questions when needed; he sought and received clarifications.
After sentencing, Hibbler sought to withdraw his plea alleging he was not mentally competent due to medications and counsel influence; the court continued proceedings and ultimately sentenced five to fifteen years.
Hibbler filed state habeas petitions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to ensure competence; Nevada courts denied without evidentiary hearings and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.
Hibbler then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the district court denied; the Ninth Circuit reviews de novo and defers to state court findings under AEDPA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state court's fact finding was unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2).	Hibbler argues the state court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on alleged incompetence.	Respondents argue the record refutes Hibbler’s allegations and supports competent plea; no hearing was required.	No; the state court's fact-finding was not an unreasonable determination of the facts.
Whether the Nevada Supreme Court's application of Strickland was unreasonable.	Hibbler contends counsel failed to ensure competence and that this affected the knowingness of the plea.	Respondents contend the record supported competent conduct and informed plea; no deficient performance established.	No; the Nevada Supreme Court reasonably applied Strickland.
Whether the district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing under Landrigan guidance.	Hibbler asserts an evidentiary hearing was necessary to assess alleged coercion/competence.	Respondents maintain the record negates the need for a hearing; allegations are refuted by the record.	No; a de novo hearing was not required given the record refutes the claims.

Key Cases Cited

Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2004) (deference limits when state factfinding is unreasonable)
Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2004) (unreasonable determinations require more than mere disagreement)
Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2005) (credibility findings and lack of evidentiary hearing considerations)
Landrigan v. Hunt, 550 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2007) (evidentiary hearings conditioned on whether they could aid relief)
Perez v. Rosario, 459 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2006) (state-court record can resolve factual questions without an evidentiary hearing)
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (U.S. 2009) (doubly deferential standard for Strickland review under AEDPA)
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1993) (competence to plead vs. understanding the proceedings)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice prong for guilty-plea ineffective assistance)
Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (U.S. 2009) (doubly deferential review for Strickland on AEDPA petitions)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (clarity on knowing and voluntary plea standards)