Victor Alfonso Duenas-Flores v The State Of Oklahoma

C-2005-1

Filed: Jun. 28, 2007

Not for publication

Prevailing Party: Victor Alfonso Duenas-Flores

Summary

Victor Alfonso Duenas-Flores appealed his conviction for first-degree manslaughter. Conviction and sentence were vacated. Judge Lumpkin dissented. In this case, Duenas-Flores was involved in a car accident that caused another driver's death while he was under the influence of alcohol. He pleaded guilty and received a 45-year prison sentence. He later claimed that he didn’t know he could contact the Mexican consulate for help, which made his plea involuntary. The court agreed that he wasn't informed about his rights but found that the plea couldn't be undone. However, the higher court decided he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, saying he could have gotten help from the consulate, which could have changed his decision. The dissenting judge argued that the consulate did not actually provide assistance when contacted and felt Duenas-Flores should not get relief.

Decision

The Petition for the Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The Judgment and Sentence is VACATED. The case is REMANDED with directions that Duenas-Flores be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea and that the district court conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Under Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch. 18 App. (2005), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon delivery and filing of this decision.

Issues

• Was Duenas-Flores's plea rendered involuntary by the State's failure to advise him of his rights to contact Mexican consular officials as required by Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations?
• Was Duenas-Flores's forty-five year sentence excessive?
• Did the district court err in its legal conclusion that Duenas-Flores was not entitled to relief because his VCCR claim was a non-jurisdictional claim foreclosed through entry of the plea?
• Did Duenas-Flores demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the State's failure to notify him of his consular access rights?
• Did the record support Duenas-Flores's claim that he would have opted to proceed to trial if he had been properly advised of his Article 36 rights?

Findings

• the district court erred in concluding that the claim was foreclosed due to procedural default
• Duenas-Flores is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea due to the VCCR violation
• the court did not reach the issue of whether the forty-five year sentence was excessive

C-2005-1

Jun. 28, 2007

Victor Alfonso Duenas-Flores

Appellant

v

The State Of Oklahoma

Appellee

OPINION GRANTING CERTIORARI

MICHAEL S. RICHIE A. JOHNSON, Judge.

Petitioner, Victor Duenas-Flores, is a Mexican national. On August 9, 2003, a vehicle he was driving crossed the centerline of a highway and struck another vehicle head-on. The driver of the second vehicle died. A blood test revealed Duenas-Flores had a blood alcohol content of 0.21. As a result of the fatal collision, Duenas-Flores was charged with the crime of first-degree manslaughter in violation of 21 O.S. 2001, § 711. On August 12, 2004, Duenas-Flores entered a blind plea of guilty to the charge in Blaine County District Court Case No. CF-2003-52, before the Honorable Ronald Franklin, District Judge. Judge Franklin sentenced Duenas-Flores to forty-five years imprisonment.

Duenas-Flores timely moved to withdraw his plea and the district court denied that motion. Following denial of his motion to withdraw his plea, Duenas-Flores petitioned this Court for certiorari claiming: (1) that his plea was rendered involuntary by the State’s failure to advise him of his rights to contact Mexican consular officials as required by Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR); and (2) his forty-five year sentence was excessive. Finding an inadequate record on the VCCR claim, this Court remanded the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing.

The district court conducted the hearing on February 8 and 16, 2006. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court determined that Duenas-Flores had not been notified without delay of his right to contact Mexican consular officials as required by the VCCR. The district court held, however, that Duenas-Flores could not show prejudice from that violation because the claim was foreclosed as a non-jurisdictional claim through the act of entering the plea.

After this Court received the record of the evidentiary hearing and the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law from that proceeding, Duenas-Flores and the State were directed to file supplemental briefs. The crux of Duenas-Flores’s claim is that he was advised by his attorney that in order to mount a defense to the charge of first-degree manslaughter he needed an expert witness to challenge the blood alcohol test results that would form the key piece of evidence against him at trial. Duenas-Flores claims he was pressured to enter a guilty plea after the district court denied his application for state funds for an expert because neither he nor his family had the funds necessary to hire such an expert. Duenas-Flores contends that had he been notified of his right to contact Mexican consular officials, he would have done so and the Mexican government would have assisted him in retaining the services of an expert.

In Torres v. State, 2005 OK CR 17, 120 P.3d 1184, 1186, a capital postconviction proceeding, we held that prejudice is presumed to flow from the State’s failure to notify a defendant of his VCCR rights if the defendant: (1) did not know he could have contacted his consulate; (2) would have done so if he had known; and (3) the consulate would have taken specific actions to assist in his criminal case. Logically, in the context of a guilty plea proceeding where we review the claim only to the extent necessary to determine whether the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily, to obtain relief for a VCCR violation, the prejudice resulting from that violation must implicate the knowing or voluntary nature of the plea.

The record of the proceeding below amply supports the district court’s factual conclusion that Duenas-Flores was not advised by the State of his consular access rights without delay as required by Article 36 of the VCCR. We therefore defer to that finding and accept it. We disagree, however, with the district court’s legal conclusion that Duenas-Flores is not entitled to relief because his claim, a non-jurisdictional claim, was foreclosed through entry of the plea. In this instance, despite having found that Duenas-Flores was not advised of his consular access rights as required by the VCCR, the district court disposed of Duenas-Flores’s claim through use of a rule of procedural default rather than conducting an inquiry into whether the VCCR violation and resulting prejudice implicated the knowing and voluntary nature of the plea. This was error.

Here, the record shows, and there is no dispute, that Duenas-Flores was not advised without delay of his right to contact the Mexican consulate as required by Article 36 of the VCCR. Furthermore, the record shows that Duenas-Flores would have done so if he had been so advised. Additionally, through the statement and affidavit of Mexican consular official Fernando Gonzalez, the record also shows that the Mexican government’s Kansas City consulate likely would have assisted Duenas-Flores in obtaining the services of an expert witness had it been informed that Duenas-Flores had been detained and was facing homicide charges.

Under these circumstances, we find that Duenas-Flores has met his burden under Torres. He has thereby made a showing sufficient for us to conclude that had he been properly advised of his Article 36 rights under the VCCR, he would have opted to proceed to trial rather than plead guilty. As a remedy for the State’s failure to comply with Article 36 of the VCCR, therefore, we find that Duenas-Flores is entitled to withdraw his plea. Because we grant relief on and vacate the judgment and sentence on the VCCR issue, we do not reach Duenas-Flores’s claim that his forty-five year sentence is excessive.

DECISION

The Petition for the Writ of Certiorari is GRANTED. The Judgment and Sentence is VACATED. The case is REMANDED with directions that Duenas-Flores be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea and that the district court conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Click Here To Download PDF

Footnotes:

1. Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 711
2. Article 36, 21 U.S.T. 77, 1969 WL 97928 (U.S. Treaty), T.I.A.S. No. 6820
3. Torres U. State, 2005 OK CR 17, 120 P.3d 1184

Oklahoma Statutes citations:

• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 711 (2001) - First-degree manslaughter
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 3.15 (2005) - Mandate
• Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 18 (2005) - Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
• Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.8 (2011) - Sentencing for manslaughter

Oklahoma Administrative Rules citations:

No Oklahoma administrative rules found.

U.S. Code citations:

No US Code citations found.

Other citations:

No other rule citations found.

Case citations:

• Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, U.S. , 126 S.Ct. 2669, 2680, 165 L.Ed.2d 557 (2006)
• Torres v. State, 2005 OK CR 17, 120 P.3d 1184, 1186