Armando Avila-Lucas v. Brian Belleque

MEMORANDUM

Oregon state prisoner Armando Avila-Lucas appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Avila-Lucas contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of the highest minimum sentence he faced. The state court’s determination that Avila-Lucas was not denied the right to effective assistance of counsel was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 785 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

Avila-Lucas also contends that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The state court’s contrary determination was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-58 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). To the extent Avila-Lucas’s claim is based on the state court’s refusal to admit the Mexican Consul’s affidavit, his claim is not cognizable. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 859,…