Preciado

Preciado v. Hickman

Good Law
48 F. App'x 652
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 10, 2002No. 01-16170; D.C. No. CV-00-03538-CRBCalifornia456 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Leonardo Preciado appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Preciado’s habeas petition challenges his California guilty plea conviction and sentence of 26 years to life for transporting and possessing methamphetamine, and driving without a license. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Preciado contends that his trial counsel was ineffective, and that his guilty plea was involuntary, because counsel erroneously advised him that the trial court would strike some of Preciado’s prior convictions and impose' a sentence of only six years. We are not persuaded.

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Preciado must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The two-part Strickland test “applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.