Hatfield

MEMORANDUM **

Daren Christensen Hatfield, a California state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his 1997 sentence following a guilty plea to three counts of robbery in violation of Cal.Penal Code § 211. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 & 2253, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a petitioner’s habeas petition. See Lockhart v. Terhune, 250 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir.2001). Because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) governs petitioner’s case, we may grant habeas relief only if the state court’s decision (1) was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, *833 clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States or (2) was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Hatfield contends that the California courts violated his right to due process by counting his 1992 conviction for battery with serious bodily injury as a serious felony and using it to enhance his current sentence pursuant to CaLPenal Code §…