USCA11 Case: 20-11136 Date Filed: 01/20/2021 Page: 1 of 14 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 20-11136 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:17-cv-61752-BB CYNTHIA SCHWARTZ, Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (January 20, 2021) Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-11136 Date Filed: 01/20/2021 Page: 2 of 14 Petitioner Cynthia Schwartz appeals the district court’s denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. She argues that the state postconviction court, in evaluating whether her plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered in light of her counsel’s alleged mistaken advice, improperly focused on the outcome of the direct appeal of her conviction rather than her decision-making process in entering the plea. Because the state court’s consideration of the outcome of her direct appeal was not an unreasonable application of United States Supreme Court precedent, we affirm the district court’s denial of her habeas petition. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In February 2002, Schwartz was charged in Florida court with one count of trafficking in cocaine in an amount between four hundred grams and one hundred fifty kilograms and two counts of trafficking in oxycodone in an amount between fourteen and twenty-eight grams. The case proceeded through extensive pretrial motions practice, which included the state trial court denying four motions relevant to this appeal: (1) a motion to suppress evidence; (2) a motion to dismiss based on objective entrapment; (3) a motion to dismiss based on presenting false testimony during the hearings on the above motions; and (4) a motion for a Franks1 hearing. 1 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requiring a hearing when a defendant claims that allegedly false statements are contained in an affidavit in support of the issuance of a search warrant). 2 USCA11 Case: 20-11136 Date Filed: 01/20/2021 Page: 3 of 14 In 2011, after nine years of litigation, Schwartz accepted a negotiated plea. She now contends that she only accepted the plea based on her attorney’s advice that he believed she would be successful in appealing various pre-trial motions and would likely secure a dismissal of the charges on review. The plea deal outlined Schwartz’s various rights in connection with the plea, including a right to appeal all dispositive pre-trial motions. Based on the parties’ stipulation, the state trial court designated the above four pre-trial motions as “dispositive” for purposes of Schwartz’s rights of appeal. In accordance with the plea agreement, the state court sentenced Schwartz to consecutive thirty-year terms of imprisonment on each count. The court then granted her a furlough, after which her sentence was mitigated to concurrent terms of imprisonment of fifteen years—the mandatory minimum on each count. Schwartz filed a timely direct appeal of her convictions and sentence to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, arguing that the state trial court erred ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals