Bartley

Bartley v. Morgan

Good Law
80 F. App'x 554
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 17, 2003No. 02-36161California716 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Vance G. Bartley appeals the denial of his habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , following his mandatory life sentence as a result of Washington’s “three strikes” law, the Washington State Persistent Offender Accountability Act. Wash. Rev.Code § 9.94A.570 (2003). 1 He asserts that (1) *556 the sentence was impermissibly enhanced by his second strike, a 1995 sentence that he has already served and that he now claims is unconstitutional based on his belief at the time of pleading that he would receive drug treatment instead of the jail time, and (2) he received constitutionally infirm ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel during the 1998 conviction failed to investigate the 1995 sentence. We affirm.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . A district court’s dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition is reviewed de novo. Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001). The district court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Solis v. Garcia, 219 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir.2000).

Because the parties are familiar with the record, we recite only the facts necessary to explain our decision.

I.

Bartley did not timely file a habeas…

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.