William Douglas Hart v. James Gomez, Director

19 F.3d 27 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. William Douglas HART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James GOMEZ, Director, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-55951. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 8, 1994. * Decided March 9, 1994. Before: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and TROTT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 William Douglas Hart, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for second degree robbery. Hart contends that (1) his guilty plea was involuntary, (2) his sentence should not have been enhanced, (3) he was improperly charged, and (4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 . We review de novo, Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1989), and affirm. 3 First, Hart contends that his guilty plea was involuntary because (a) the trial court told him he could receive a twenty-three-year sentence, and…