979 F. 2d 855 - McConner v. R Meyers

MEMORANDUM**

Willie J. McConner, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and review the denial de novo. Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm.

McConner's only assignment of error is that the district court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the trial court improperly used convictions by guilty plea to enhance McConner's sentence. McConner contends that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter into those guilty pleas.

The question of whether a defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into a guilty plea is reviewed de novo by a federal habeas court. Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 435-38 (1983). A state court's determination of the underlying facts of such a claim are entitled to a presumption of correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Id.

Here, the state court held an evidentiary hearing and determined that petitioner had been informed of the consequences of his guilty pleas, understood these consequences, and knowingly and voluntarily entered into the guilty pleas under the standard set forth in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969). Moreover, the district court independently reviewed the state court record and reached the same conclusion. Petitioner has not demonstrated that the state court hearing was inadequate or that its factual determination was not fairly supported by the record. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.