Ordinola
United States v. Ordinola
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Fernando Ordinola has petitioned for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 , arguing that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to communicate properly and accept a plea offer. After holding an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance issue, the district court denied Ordinola’s petition. We affirm.
We review ineffective assistance of counsel claims de novo. Mancuso v. Olivarez, 292 F.3d 939, 949 (9th Cir.2002). Ordinola must show that counsel’s actions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance and that he was prejudiced as a result of counsel’s actions. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-690 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Strickland applies to claims of ineffective assistance during the plea process. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57-58 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985).
Because conflicting evidence was presented below, resolution of Ordinola’s *760 claim depends upon a credibility determination. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. Anderson v. Calderon, 232 F.3d 1053, 1084 (9th Cir. 2000).
The district court found that (1) counsel fully advised Ordinola of the…