Jim Davis v. J.M. Ratelle, Warden Attorney General of the State of California Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General James Gomez, Director

95 F.3d 1157 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Jim DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.M. RATELLE, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California; Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General; James Gomez, Director, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-56227. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 12, 1996. * Decided Aug. 23, 1996. Before: BROWNING, SCHROEDER and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 California state prisoner Jim Davis appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo a district court's decision on a section 2254 petition, Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 739 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1549 (1996), and we affirm. 3 On appeal, Davis contends that trial counsel was ineffective on the ground counsel "deceived" and coerced him into entering a guilty plea when counsel incorrectly advised Davis that he could…