892 F. 2d 1045 - Fritz v. Sumner
892 F2d 1045 Fritz v. Sumner
892 F.2d 1045
Christopher FRITZ, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
George SUMNER, Warden, D. Brian Mckay, Attorney General, for
the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 89-15196.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 1989.*
Decided Dec. 14, 1989.
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Before JAMES R. BROWNING, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
MEMORANDUM**
Fritz appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging the entry of his guilty plea. In assessing the validity of a guilty plea an appellate court should review the entire record, and look to the totality of the facts and circumstances of a defendant's case, to determine whether a defendant entered his plea with an actual understanding of the nature of the charges against him. See Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 103 S.Ct. 843, 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983); Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976). A review of the transcripts of both the change of plea hearing and the entry of judgment and imposition of sentence hearing discloses that the petitioner was fully informed of the charges against him and stated an adequate factual basis.
AFFIRMED.