Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Flores v. Stewart
Citation: 52 F. App'x 924Docket: No. 01-17533; D.C. No. CV-00-01270-SMM
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 8, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Lino Flores appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus following his guilty plea for first-degree murder. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and reviews the case de novo. Flores argues that his guilty plea was not voluntary or intelligent due to the prosecutor's alleged withholding of material exculpatory evidence, violating Brady v. Maryland. Specifically, he claims the prosecution failed to disclose a witness who could have supported a self-defense argument rather than premeditation. The court finds Flores's claims unpersuasive, stating that to prove a Brady violation, he must demonstrate that the undisclosed evidence was material to his defense. The court cites prior rulings indicating that undisclosed evidence must support a viable defense. Given that the victim was stabbed 19 times, the witness's testimony would only bolster an implausible self-defense claim, thus not being material to Flores's decision to plead guilty. Consequently, Flores did not show that he would have opted for a trial instead of pleading guilty had the witness's information been disclosed. The court affirms the district court's decision, and this disposition is not suitable for publication or citation, except as allowed under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.