Lee M. Hays v. State of Idaho

967 F.2d 586 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Lee M. HAYS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent-Appellee. No. 91-35774. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 3, 1992. * Decided June 15, 1992. Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, CANBY and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Lee M. Hays appeals pro se the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. 3 I. Hay's Attorney's Alleged Assurance that Hays Would Be Sentenced to no More Than 10 Years In Prison and Would Be Eligible for Parole in 18-22 Months 4 Hays contends that his attorney "informed defendant that he had been in conferance [sic] and ... that defendant would receive a sentence of ten years at most, doing only 18-22 months in prison and then be paroled." Hays argues that his attorney's statement led him to plead guilty, and that its inaccuracy renders his plea involuntary. He also suggests that his attorney's alleged misrepresentation…