USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 1 of 22
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6179
KENNETH KELLEY,
Petitioner – Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM S. BOHRER, Acting Warden; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents – Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:20-cv-03697-GJH)
Argued: January 25, 2024 Decided: February 28, 2024
Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Reversed and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge Agee wrote the
opinion in which Judge Richardson and Judge Quattlebaum joined.
ARGUED: Andrew John DiMiceli, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Mary Claire Davis, WEST
VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, Morgantown, West Virginia, for
Appellee. ON BRIEF: Anthony G. Brown, Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 2 of 22
AGEE, Circuit Judge:
The State of Maryland (the “State”) appeals the district court’s grant of Kenneth
Kelley’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the petition, Kelley
asserts that his state-court guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he wasn’t
informed of the nature and elements of the offenses to which he was pleading guilty and
that the state post-conviction court erred in concluding otherwise. The district court agreed
with Kelley, but in doing so, it failed to give due deference to the state-court decision.
Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to
deny Kelley’s petition.
I.
On October 10, 2014, Kelley was driving his vehicle thirty-five to forty miles per
hour over the speed limit with a blood alcohol concentration of .14 when he came upon a
vehicle that was stopped at a red light. Without braking, Kelley slammed into the rear of
the vehicle, which sent it spinning into a pole. Four of the people in that vehicle died as a
result of the collision—including two children—and one of Kelley’s passengers also died.
A state grand jury indicted Kelley on twenty-eight counts. Counts 1 through 5
charged Kelley with killing each of the five victims in a grossly negligent manner. Counts
6 through 10 charged Kelley with killing each of the victims “as the result of driving a
vehicle in a criminally negligent manner.” J.A. 58–59. Counts 11 through 15 charged
Kelley with killing each of the victims “as a result of his negligent driving, operation, and
control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol per se.” J.A. 59–60. Counts
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 3 of 22
16 through 20 charged him with killing each of the victims “as a result of his negligent
driving, operation, and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.” J.A. 61–62.
And Counts 21 through 28 charged Kelley with driving under the influence per se, driving
while impaired by alcohol, driving unlicensed, reckless driving, negligent driving, failure
to control speed to avoid a collision with another vehicle, failure to stop at a steady circular
red signal, and driving a vehicle on a highway with an expired license.
The State offered Kelley a plea deal whereby he would plead guilty to Counts 1
through 5 and receive a fifty-year sentence with all but thirty years suspended. Kelley
rejected the State’s offer and chose to plead guilty to the entire indictment so as to remain
free to allocute on the sentence.
At the plea hearing, Kelley testified that he was twenty-seven years old and had not
completed high school. He had a prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute
but—according to his counsel—“[n]othing like this.” J.A. 71. The court asked if Kelley
could read English and whether he’d read the indictment, to which Kelley responded in the
affirmative. The court briefly explained the charges, stating:
[The] charges range from manslaughter by auto to driving with an expired
license with additional counts of manslaughter by vehicle, criminal
negligence, neglect [sic] homicide by motor vehicle, homicide by vessel.
Many of these merge you understand. They’re the same thing. DUI per se,
driving while impaired, driving without a valid license, reckless driving,
negligent driving, failure to control motor vehicle to avoid a collision, failure
to stop at a steady red light, and, again, driving with an expired license.
J.A. 73 (emphasis added). The court also noted “that there are statutory penalties with these
that could be 60, 70 years,” J.A. 73, even though defense counsel and the prosecutor had
agreed that the maximum sentence was fifty years’ imprisonment.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 4 of 22
The State then provided the factual basis for the indictment, which matched the facts
given above. Kelley did not have any “significant additions or corrections” to the factual
basis. J.A. 79.
Finally, the court asked Kelley if he “discussed this matter thoroughly” with his
counsel, to which Kelley responded in the affirmative. J.A. 80. Kelley also indicated that
he didn’t have questions for the court or his counsel and that he was “freely, knowingly
and voluntarily entering a plea to the entire indictment because in fact [he was] guilty and
for no other reason.” J.A. 80–81. The court therefore found that Kelley entered his plea
knowingly and voluntarily.
Kelley signed a waiver of rights related to his guilty plea, in which he acknowledged
that he “fully underst[oo]d the charge[s] of [the] Indictment and the elements of the
offense(s).” S.J.A. 2. His attorney signed the same form, certifying that he advised Kelley
of “[t]he nature of the charge(s)” and “the elements of all of the charges.” S.J.A. 3.
The court sentenced Kelley to fifty years’ imprisonment. He received ten years’
imprisonment for negligent manslaughter-auto on each of Counts 1 through 5, to be served
consecutively, and one year for Count 21 (driving under the influence per se), to be served
concurrently. 1
After an unsuccessful direct appeal, Kelley filed a petition for post-conviction relief
1
Counts 6 through 10 merged with Counts 1 through 5; Count 22 merged with
Count 21; and Counts 23 through 28 were suspended. Kelley was not sentenced on Counts
11 through 20 because he couldn’t be sentenced “for killing the same person twice.” J.A.
95. Also, Kelley was sentenced to an additional twenty-five days for failure to appear at
his first scheduled sentencing.
4
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 5 of 22
in Maryland state court, raising (as relevant here) the issue of whether his guilty plea was
knowing and voluntary when he allegedly was not advised of the nature and elements of
the offenses.
The state post-conviction court held a hearing, during which Kelley testified that his
plea counsel read him the charges he faced, that they went over the indictment together,
and that he asked no follow-up questions about those charges. When asked to describe his
understanding of the charges, Kelley stated: “I don’t know. I understand that they was [sic]
law breaking, that I broke the law.” J.A. 233. He further testified: “I didn’t know what the
importance of the elements of a criminal offense was until I went over my case a couple of
times . . . with a dude who worked at the prison library. . . . I mean, I still haven’t found
out what the elements to the charge that I pled guilty to are. I’m still unaware of the
elements.” J.A. 236–37. He also admitted to signing the waiver form. Finally, he indicated
that he didn’t complete high school, didn’t read well, and had never previously been
charged with manslaughter.
Kelley’s plea attorney also testified at the post-conviction hearing. He stated that he
“explained to [Kelley] that the fact that he was speeding under the influence of alcohol and
ran into the rear of another vehicle was enough for him to have a conviction.” J.A. 288–
89. And when asked if he and Kelley went over the elements of the charges, plea counsel
elaborated that he
explained to [Kelley] what would be necessary for the jury to find -- for him
to be found guilty which in my opinion, the fact that he was the driver, his
car was speeding, he ran into the rear of a car, and he was under the influence
of alcohol would be enough for him to receive -- the maximum sentence he
could receive for any of them was ten years, because that’s what the issue is.
5
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 6 of 22
You can’t get two convictions on indifferent [sic] theories and be sentenced
to both of them. So that’s what I told him. So, in my opinion . . . that would
be the elements in this particular case.
J.A. 289. 2 He also indicated that he went over the waiver form with Kelley—who he opined
was of average intelligence—including the provision that said that defense counsel advised
the defendant of the nature and elements of the charges.
However, he wasn’t sure that he differentiated between the levels of negligence in
the charges. See J.A. 287 (Q: “How would you describe the difference between gross
negligence and criminal negligence to Mr. Kelley?” A: “I’m not sure -- I’m not even sure
I did. I may have done that. I’m not sure I did.”); J.A. 288 (Q: “[Y]ou’re not sure that you
described the difference between those levels of negligence to Mr. Kelley. Right?” A:
“Yes, but in this, the facts in this case he is speeding. He ran into the rear of . . . another
vehicle, and he is under the influence[] of alcohol. That would augment -- that would
suffice for all of them.”); J.A. 290 (“I don’t believe I set up and distinguished each
count[.]”). He also didn’t believe he “ever g[ave] [Kelley] the statute[s].” J.A. 290.
Following the hearing, the state court issued a decision denying the petition for post-
conviction relief. Its decision contained a seventeen-paragraph section considering the
2
Plea counsel explained:
[W]hen I am trying to explain to someone the elements of the case it’s more
important for them to know how they directly relate to their case. For
everybody it might be different. . . . Now, is that necessarily how the reading
of the law would indicate? But I try to make it fact sensitive to each case.
And in this case that would be what was necessary for the State to prove.
J.A. 291–92.
6
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 7 of 22
voluntariness of Kelley’s plea based on his purported lack of knowledge of the elements of
the charges, as well as two paragraphs in the conclusion on this claim. The state court
reasoned that Kelley’s plea was knowing and voluntary because, inter alia, he told the plea
judge that he was “freely, knowingly and voluntarily entering a plea to the entire
indictment” because he was in fact guilty; he “clearly acknowledged his guilt and had a
sufficient understanding of the nature of the charges”; and “[t]he statement of facts [was]
read into the record with little to no changes made which put [Kelley] on notice of his
actions while driving that resulted in the deaths of five people.” J.A. 146. The state
appellate court then denied Kelley leave to appeal this decision, after which Kelley filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
In his federal habeas petition, Kelley claimed, inter alia, that his plea was not
knowing and voluntary because he wasn’t advised of the nature and elements of the
offenses. The district court agreed and granted the petition, vacated Kelley’s convictions
and sentence, and remanded the case to state court for a new trial. 3
In its interpretation of the state post-conviction court decision, the district court read
the first twelve paragraphs on the voluntariness of the plea as containing both Kelley’s
arguments and the state court’s factual findings. Based on this reading of the state court’s
decision, the district court concluded that the state court “unreasonably applied the facts to
the law” because it made findings of fact that, e.g., “counsel failed to explain the critical
elements of the charges” to Kelley and “the factual basis read at the plea hearing did not
3
This order is stayed pending the outcome of this appeal.
7
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 8 of 22
inform nor explain to [him] the elements of the more complex charges of manslaughter by
vehicle,” Kelley v. Bohrer, Civil Action No. GJH-20-03697, 2023 WL 415552, at *8 (D.
Md. Jan. 25, 2023) (cleaned up), but then also found that Kelley’s plea was knowing and
voluntary. The district court stated that:
Before the plea hearing, Kelley never received any explanation of the nature
of the charges against him by counsel and during the plea hearing he was
misled by the [state court] that the nature of the charges against him were
“the same.” In these circumstances, the record does not establish that his plea
was knowing.
Id. The district court further reasoned that the reading of the factual basis at the plea hearing
was insufficient to inform Kelley of the elements of the offenses and that the “canned
waiver form” was also insufficient in light of plea counsel’s failure to explain the elements
of the offenses and the plea court’s misleading statements. Id.
The State timely appealed the district court’s order. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291.
II.
We review a district court’s grant of habeas relief de novo, but that review is highly
circumscribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”),
28 U.S.C. § 2254. Bowman v. Stirling,
45 F.4th 740, 752 (4th Cir. 2022). As we have
explained, “AEDPA imposes extensive limits on when a federal court is permitted to grant
habeas relief to state prisoners and how a federal court is to review claims presented in a
§ 2254 petition.” Folkes v. Nelsen, 34 F.4th 258, 267 (4th Cir. 2022). Under AEDPA, once
a state court adjudicates a petitioner’s claims on the merits, a federal court can’t grant
8
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 9 of 22
habeas relief unless, as relevant here, the state-court decision was “contrary to, or involved
an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
A state court’s decision is contrary to clearly established federal law “if the state
court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question
of law, or if it reaches a different result than the Supreme Court previously reached on a
materially indistinguishable set of facts.” Barnes v. Joyner, 751 F.3d 229, 238 (4th Cir.
2014) (cleaned up). And a state court unreasonably applies federal law when it “identifies
the correct governing legal rule” but “unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular
case,” “unreasonably extends a legal principle from the Court’s precedent to a new context
where it should not apply[,] or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new
context where it should apply.” DeCastro v. Branker, 642 F.3d 442, 449 (4th Cir. 2011)
(cleaned up); see Barnes, 751 F.3d at 238–39 (“[W]e look to whether the state court’s
application of law was objectively unreasonable and not simply whether the state court
applied the law incorrectly.” (cleaned up)).
Thus, the AEDPA standard for reviewing claims of legal error by a state court is
“highly deferential”: a state prisoner must show “that the state court’s ruling on the claim
being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error
beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Burt v. Titlow, 571 U.S. 12, 18–20
(2013) (cleaned up). When applying this standard, “a federal habeas court simply reviews
the specific reasons given by the state court and defers to those reasons if they are
reasonable.” Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1192 (2018). Further, the federal court
9
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 10 of 22
must assume the state court’s factual determinations are correct unless there is clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537
U.S. 322, 340 (2003).
III.
The State makes two arguments in support of reversal based on the deferential
AEDPA standard. First, it contends that the district court erroneously interpreted the state
post-conviction court decision in an internally inconsistent way, in violation of the
principle that federal courts “should avoid finding internal inconsistencies and
contradictions in the decisions of state courts where they do not necessarily exist.”
Ferguson v. Sec’y, Fla. Dept. of Corr., 716 F.3d 1315, 1340 (11th Cir. 2013). Second, the
State asserts that when the state-court decision is properly construed in an internally
consistent way, it is clear that the state post-conviction court’s decision was not contrary
to or an unreasonable application of federal law. We agree with the State on both points
and thus conclude that Kelley does not overcome AEDPA’s “formidable barrier to federal
habeas relief.” Burt, 571 U.S. at 16. The district court erred in concluding otherwise.
A.
We first address the State’s argument regarding the best interpretation of the state
post-conviction decision. As explained above, the state-court decision contains a
seventeen-paragraph section on the voluntary nature of Kelley’s plea based on his
knowledge of the elements of the offenses, as well as two concluding paragraphs on this
claim. The State argues that the most reasonable interpretation of the state-court decision
10
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 11 of 22
is that—of the seventeen-paragraph section—the first twelve paragraphs solely discuss
Kelley’s arguments because they are copied nearly verbatim from his petition; the next
three solely discuss the State’s arguments (again, nearly verbatim); and the last two contain
the court’s actual findings. The State claims that to read the opinion as the district court
did—which considers the first twelve paragraphs as containing Kelley’s arguments and the
court’s factual findings—creates an inconsistency in the decision because those purported
findings contradict the state court’s ultimate conclusion that Kelley sufficiently understood
the nature and elements of the charges. And, because a federal court reviewing a state-court
decision pursuant to AEDPA should avoid unnecessarily finding inconsistencies in the
state decision, the State contends that the district court should have read the opinion in the
internally consistent way it advocates.
Kelley responds that considering the first fifteen paragraphs as containing factual
findings would not conflict with the state court’s ultimate decision. In his view, “there is a
quite logical way to read the decision: the postconviction court unreasonably applied
federal law to those factual findings, resulting in a decision that was contrary to Supreme
Court precedent.” Response Br. 33.
We agree with the State’s interpretation of the state post-conviction court’s decision
and disagree with Kelley.
A number of the sentences in the first fifteen paragraphs are clearly restatements,
often verbatim, of the parties’ arguments and begin with statements like “Petitioner’s
counsel argues” and “Petitioner asserts.” J.A. 139. Other sentences are statements of law
or basic statements about the facts of the case that the parties don’t dispute. Putting those
11
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 12 of 22
sentences aside, we conclude that the disputed sentences are best and most logically read
as describing the parties’ arguments rather than as separate state-court factual findings for
three reasons.
First, many of the disputed sentences appear to be continuations of immediately
preceding argument sentences—meaning that they continue to describe the parties’
arguments even though they don’t independently signal that they do. See, e.g., J.A. 139
(“Petitioner’s counsel argues Petitioner’s plea to the indictment was not made knowingly
and voluntarily because he was not advised of the elements of the offenses. Petitioner states
the trial court asked questions to make sure Petitioner knew his rights to a jury, his right to
testify or not to testify, and the sentencing maximum. However, the trial court did not ask
the Petitioner if he understood the nature and elements of the offenses that he pled guilty
to.” (emphasis added)).
Second, most of the sentences closely track the language in Kelley’s petition, which
provides further support for the conclusion that they are simply restatements of Kelley’s
arguments. Compare, e.g., J.A. 186 (Kelley’s state petition) (“Petitioner entered a plea of
guilty to 28 counts. Some of the counts have a logical, understandable meaning listed in
the charge itself (for example: driving while impaired or driving without a valid license).
However, in its varying degrees, manslaughter by vehicle is not readily understandable.”
(cleaned up)), with J.A. 140 (state post-conviction decision) (“Petitioner pled guilty to
twenty-eight (28) counts. Certain counts are easy to understand and the meaning can be
deciphered from the charge itself. For example, driving while impaired or driving without
a valid driver’s license. Yet, depending on the degree, manslaughter by vehicle is not easy
12
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 13 of 22
to comprehend.”).
Third, reading the disputed statements as factual findings would result in
inconsistencies between the facts and the state-court’s rationale in denying Kelley’s
petition. Compare, e.g., J.A. 141 (“[T]he proffer did not inform nor explain to Petitioner
the elements of the more complex charges of manslaughter by vehicle.”), and J.A. 142 (“It
is also clear the factual basis for the plea does not discuss or explain the nature/elements of
the complex charges.”), with J.A. 146 (“Petitioner clearly acknowledged his guilt and had
a sufficient understanding of the nature of the charges. The statement of facts [was] read
into the record with little to no changes made which put Petitioner on notice of his actions
while driving that resulted in the deaths of five people.”).
Stated differently, reading the disputed statements as factual findings would make
the state court’s conclusion to find Kelley’s plea voluntary nonsensical. And so long as
there is a reasonable alternative reading, as there is here, that reading would violate the rule
that federal courts “should avoid finding internal inconsistencies and contradictions in the
decisions of state courts where they do not necessarily exist.” Ferguson, 716 F.3d at 1340;
see Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649, 654 (2004) (per curiam) (finding that the court of
appeals erred when it interpreted a state-court decision to “needlessly create internal
inconsistency”); Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (“[R]eadiness to attribute
error is inconsistent with the presumption that state courts know and follow the law. It is
also incompatible with § 2254(d)’s highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court
rulings[.]” (cleaned up)); Elmore v. Ozmint, 661 F.3d 783, 869 n.51 (4th Cir. 2011) (giving
a state-court order the benefit of the doubt when its decision was ambiguous). Therefore,
13
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 14 of 22
giving the state-court decision “the benefit of the doubt,” Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S.
170, 181 (2011) (citation omitted), we conclude that it should be read as only making
factual findings in paragraph seventeen and in the conclusion section. 4
B.
Now that we have identified the correct interpretation of the state post-conviction
decision, we turn to the State’s argument that, properly interpreted, the state decision was
not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. We agree.
4 For clarity, those findings are as follows:
Looking at the plea transcript, Judge Northrop found the plea was entered
into knowingly and voluntarily when the statement of facts [was] read into
the record. Furthermore, no changes or corrections were made to the
statement of facts. This is reflected on page 13, lines 2-8. The Judge asked
Petitioner whether he had any questions about the plea and Petitioner stated
he was pleading guilty to the charge simply because he was guilty. This is
reflected on pages 12 and 13 of the plea transcript. On March 27, 2017,
Petitioner signed a Waiver of Right/Guilty Plea form where he acknowledges
the following statement, “I fully understand the charge of the Indictment and
the elements of the offense(s).” This issue is without merit.
J.A. 144 (paragraph 17).
In the transcript of Petitioner’s sentencing page 12, lines 23-25[,] Judge
Northrop asks “Are you freely, knowingly and voluntarily entering a plea to
the entire indictment because in fact you are guilty and for no other reason?”
On page 13, lines 1-8 Defendant said “yes.” Petitioner clearly acknowledged
his guilt and had a sufficient understanding of the nature of the charges. The
statement of facts [was] read into the record with little to no changes made
which put Petitioner on notice of his actions while driving that resulted in the
deaths of five people.
J.A. 146 (conclusion).
14
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 15 of 22
1.
“The starting point” in a habeas case “is to identify the clearly established Federal
law” that governs the claims. Marshall v. Rodgers, 569 U.S. 58, 61 (2013) (cleaned up).
This phrase “refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s
decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S.
362, 412 (2000). The parties agree that two Supreme Court cases are particularly relevant
to this appeal: Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976), and Bradshaw v. Stumpf,
545
U.S. 175 (2005).
In Henderson, a habeas petitioner with “substantially below average intelligence”
alleged that his guilty plea to second-degree murder was involuntary because he wasn’t
aware that intent to cause death was an element of the charge. 426 U.S. at 638–39, 642.
The Supreme Court held that the plea was involuntary because the petitioner wasn’t
advised by counsel or the court that intent to cause death was an essential element. Id. at
645–46. The Court explained:
Normally the record contains either an explanation of the charge by the trial
judge, or at least a representation by defense counsel that the nature of the
offense has been explained to the accused. Moreover, even without such an
express representation, it may be appropriate to presume that in most cases
defense counsel routinely explain the nature of the offense in sufficient detail
to give the accused notice of what he is being asked to admit. This case is
unique because the trial judge found as a fact that the element of intent was
not explained to [the petitioner].
Id. at 647.
The Court also reasoned that the petitioner had never been formally indicted for
second-degree murder and therefore wasn’t aware of the intent element via the indictment.
15
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 16 of 22
Id. at 645. And the petitioner’s admission to the factual basis—that he stabbed the victim,
killing her—didn’t necessarily mean that he was admitting to intending to kill the victim.
Id. at 646. Therefore, the Court stated:
There is nothing in this record that can serve as a substitute for either a
finding after trial, or a voluntary admission, that respondent had the requisite
intent. Defense counsel did not purport to stipulate to that fact; they did not
explain to him that his plea would be an admission of that fact; and he made
no factual statement or admission necessarily implying that he had such
intent. In these circumstances, it is impossible to conclude that his plea to the
unexplained charge of second-degree murder was voluntary.
Id.
Nearly thirty years later, in Bradshaw, the Supreme Court again considered a habeas
petitioner who pleaded guilty to a murder charge—this time, aggravated murder—but later
claimed he hadn’t known that specific intent to cause death was an element of the offense.
545 U.S. at 182. The Court explained that if a defendant pleads guilty without having been
informed of the elements of the crime, the plea is not knowing and voluntary. Id. at 183.
However, the Court found that the petitioner had been informed of the elements of his
crime before pleading guilty because “[i]n [the petitioner’s] plea hearing, his attorneys
represented on the record that they had explained to their client the elements of the
aggravated murder charge; [the petitioner] himself then confirmed that this representation
was true.” Id. The Court elaborated:
[W]e have never held that the judge must himself explain the elements of
each charge to the defendant on the record. Rather, the constitutional
prerequisites of a valid plea may be satisfied where the record accurately
reflects that the nature of the charge and the elements of the crime were
explained to the defendant by his own, competent counsel. Where a
defendant is represented by competent counsel, the court usually may rely on
that counsel’s assurance that the defendant has been properly informed of the
16
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 17 of 22
nature and elements of the charge to which he is pleading guilty.
Id. (citation omitted).
2.
For purposes of this case, the take-away from Henderson and Bradshaw is that in
order for a guilty plea to be voluntary, the defendant must be informed of the elements of
the offense, whether by the court, defense counsel, the indictment, or the agreed-to factual
basis. That rule is easily met here.
First, Kelley testified at his plea hearing that he had read the indictment, and he
doesn’t dispute that the indictment laid out the elements of the offenses to which he pled
guilty. He testified similarly at the post-conviction hearing. See J.A. 231–32 (Q: “What do
you mean when [counsel] told you what the 28 charges were?” A: “I mean he just pretty
much told me what the 28 charges that I was facing [were].” Q: “As in he read you what
the charges were?” A: “Right.”). “[S]tanding alone, [that] give[s] rise to a presumption that
the defendant was informed of the nature of the charge[s] against him.” Bousley v. United
States, 523 U.S. 614, 618 (1998) (involving a defendant who was given a copy of the
indictment containing the elements of his offense before his plea); c.f. Henderson, 426 U.S.
at 645 (finding the plea involuntary in part because the petitioner had never been indicted
for the charge to which he pled guilty and thus didn’t learn of the intent element from the
indictment).
Second, at the plea hearing, the judge asked Kelley if he had “discussed this matter
thoroughly” with his counsel and was satisfied with his counsel’s services, to which Kelley
responded in the affirmative. J.A. 80. The court also asked Kelley if he had questions for
17
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 18 of 22
counsel or the court, to which Kelley responded, “No.” J.A. 80. This Court has found that
a similar exchange between a defendant and plea judge was sufficient to invoke the
Henderson presumption that defense counsel explained the nature of the offense to the
defendant. See Harrison v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary, 890 F.2d 676, 678 (4th Cir. 1989)
(explaining that the Henderson presumption was appropriate because, inter alia, the trial
judge asked the defendant “if he had discussed this matter ‘entirely’ with his counsel” and
the defendant responded that he had).
Third, Kelley signed a waiver—which his attorney testified he reviewed with
Kelley—indicating that he understood the elements of the offenses. His attorney also
certified that he advised Kelley of the nature and elements of the charges. As Henderson
explains, “a representation by defense counsel that the nature of the offense had been
explained to the accused”—as is contained in the record in this case—is normally sufficient
to finding a plea voluntary. 426 U.S. at 647; see Bradshaw,
545 U.S. at 183 (denying habeas
relief on involuntary plea claim because at the plea hearing, defense counsel represented
that they explained the elements of the charge to the defendant, which the defendant
confirmed); id. (“Where a defendant is represented by competent counsel, the court usually
may rely on that counsel’s assurance that the defendant has been properly informed of the
nature and elements of the charge[.]”). 5
5
Although Kelley contends that “the mere signing of a boilerplate statement to the
effect that a defendant is knowingly waiving his rights will not discharge the government’s
burden,” United States v. Hayes, 385 F.2d 375, 377 (4th Cir. 1967); see Response Br. 41,
and even assuming his characterization of the waiver in this case is correct, a “mere”
“boilerplate statement” is not the only evidence that Kelley was informed of the nature and
18
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 19 of 22
Fourth, the prosecution also read its factual basis into the record at the plea hearing;
Kelley confirmed that he had no significant corrections to the facts; and his attorney
testified at the post-conviction hearing that he discussed the facts with Kelley and explained
that he believed those facts were sufficient for the jury to find him guilty of the counts in
the indictment. Kelley thus plainly “possesse[d] an understanding of the law in relation to
the facts,” without which his guilty plea could not have been “truly voluntary.” McCarthy
v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466 (1969).
Considering all of this evidence collectively, see Brady v. United States, 397 U.S.
742, 749 (1970) (“The voluntariness of [a] plea can be determined only by considering all
of the relevant circumstances surrounding it.”), it was more than sufficient for the state
court to reasonably conclude that Kelley’s plea was knowing and voluntary. Stated
differently, Kelley has failed to show that the state post-conviction court’s ruling “was so
lacking in justification that there was an error beyond any possibility for fairminded
disagreement.” Burt, 571 U.S. at 20 (cleaned up). Therefore, he is not entitled to the
“extraordinary remedy” of habeas relief. Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366, 377 (2022)
(citation omitted).
3.
In spite of the substantial evidence supporting the state court’s determination,
Kelley argues—and the district court found—that his plea was involuntary. We address
elements of the charges. See, e.g., J.A. 72 (Kelley testifying that he read the indictment);
J.A. 80 (Kelley confirming that he had “discussed this matter thoroughly” with counsel).
19
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 20 of 22
Kelley’s arguments and the district court’s reasoning in turn.
Kelley suggests his plea was defective because he did not receive a detailed
definition of the mens rea for each charge or a comparison of the different charges. But
that is simply not what Henderson and Bradshaw require. Nor has Kelley identified any
Supreme Court case dictating, or even suggesting, that legal terms of art must be explained
to a defendant before he can knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty. See Harrington v.
Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011) (“As a condition for obtaining habeas corpus from a
federal court, a state prisoner must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being
presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well
understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded
disagreement.” (emphasis added)).
The district court took issue with the state post-conviction court’s decision because
“Kelley was provided with incorrect information by the [state court] about the nature of
the charges.” Kelley, 2023 WL 415552, at *8. Specifically, the district court determined
that the plea court misled Kelley about the maximum penalties he faced and incorrectly
told him that many of his charges were “the same.” Id. But Kelley doesn’t bring a claim
for an involuntary plea based on any failure to inform him of the penalties he faced, and
even if he had pursued such a claim, the state post-conviction court could’ve reasonably
rejected the plea court’s error as harmless because the plea court advised him of higher
statutory penalties than he actually could’ve received, and he nevertheless chose to plead
guilty. Further, although the plea court’s statement that “[m]any of [the charges] merge
. . . . They’re the same thing,” J.A. 73, could’ve been better stated, the court was correct
20
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 21 of 22
that many of the charges would ultimately merge for purposes of sentencing. See J.A. 65–
66 (sentencing sheets indicating, e.g., that Counts 6 through 10 merged with Counts 1
through 5); see also Ferguson, 716 F.3d at 1340 (giving the state court “the benefit of the
doubt,” as required by AEDPA, even though the state court’s word choice “could have
been more precise and technically correct”). Therefore, the district court erred in relying
on these purported misstatements to grant Kelley’s habeas petition.
Next, the district court found that Kelley’s signing of the waiver form was
insufficient to render the plea voluntary when his counsel didn’t explain the elements of
the offenses and the court misled him about the nature of the charges. This conclusion is
erroneous. First, as explained above, there was sufficient evidence that Kelley was
informed of the elements of the offenses. And to the extent the district court relied on the
state post-conviction court’s purported finding that Kelley’s counsel didn’t explain the
elements of the charges to him, that reflects a misinterpretation of the state court’s factual
findings. Second, as explained above, the state post-conviction court could have reasonably
concluded that the plea court’s statements were not misleading or were harmless.
In sum, reviewing Kelley’s claims of error under the requisite “highly deferential”
standard, there is ample evidence supporting the state court’s conclusion that Kelley’s plea
was knowing and voluntary due to his knowledge of the nature and elements of the charges
to which he pleaded guilty. Burt, 571 U.S. at 18. In other words, it was erroneous for the
district court to conclude “that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in
federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error beyond any possibility
for fairminded disagreement.” Id. at 19–20 (cleaned up).
21
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6179 Doc: 46 Filed: 02/28/2024 Pg: 22 of 22
IV.
In conclusion, the district court erred in granting Kelley’s habeas petition. We
therefore reverse and remand with instructions to deny Kelley’s habeas corpus petition.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
22
