Whether the Ninth Circuit misapplied Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976), in concluding that a state court could reasonably presume from a silent record that petitioner's trial counsel explained the elements of the offense to him off the record, defeating even a prima facie claim that the plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the Ninth Circuit misapplied Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976), in concluding that a state court could reasonably presume from a silent record that petitioner’s trial counsel explained the elements of the offense to him off the record, defeating even a prima facie claim that the plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. i IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner Armando J. Mena challenges the validity of his guilty plea on the | ground that he was not explained the elements of the offense before entering his guilty plea. The record of the plea provides no indication that Mena was explained the elements by either his counsel or the court. The Ninth Circuit’s unpublished . memorandum disposition misapplied this Court’s precedents in concluding that a state court may presume that a defendant’s trial counsel explained the elements of the offense to him off the record, foreclosing the defendant from stating a prima facie claim that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Mena asks that the Court exercise its supervisory authority to reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Court’s precedents requiring the record affirmatively show that a guilty plea is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and prohibiting waiver from a silent record. OPINIONS BELOW The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment below in an unpublished memorandum disposition. (App. 2-7.) The opinion of the District Court of the Central District of California, adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Amended Report & Recommendation, was also unreported (App. 9-14.). The 1 California Supreme Court summarily denied Mena’s state habeas petition. (App. 43.) STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). The Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and entered judgment on May 1, 2019. (App. 2.) The Ninth Circuit denied Mena’s request for panel rehearing on May 22, 2019. (App. 1.) CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV, § 1 [N]or shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 28 U.S. Code § 2254 (d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 2