James Evans v. Tom Felker

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner James Lee Evans appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Evans contends that his counsel was constitutionally deficient in failing to advise him of the maximum sentence that he faced by entering a plea directly to the court. This claim fails because the state court reasonably determined that Evans was aware of the maximum sentence when he entered his plea; thus, Evans cannot establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Evans also contends that counsel rendered deficient performance in predicting that he was highly unlikely to receive a sentence of more than 14 years if he entered a plea to the court. This claims fails because Evans has failed to establish that there is no “reasonable argument that counsel satisfied Strickland’s deferential standard.” See Harrington v. Richter, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 770, 788 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

To the extent that Evans argues that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, as required by due process, we decline to…