Liggins

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Arthur Charles Liggins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, through which Liggins challenged his conviction for residential burglary and assault. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Liggins has not established that his trial counsel’s performance with respect to his 1995 guilty plea was constitutionally deficient or that it prejudiced him during his 1996 trial and conviction. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 691 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Liggins’s contention that the prosecution acted vindictively by adding new enhancements to the information filed against him after he withdrew his guilty plea is unsupported by the record. See United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 384 , 102 S.Ct. 2485 , 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982) (rejecting “presumption of vindictiveness” where prosecution files more severe charges after defendant rejects plea).

Liggins’s contention that he was entitled to an instruction on self-defense is also without merit. Generally, a federal habeas petition may not rest on an alleged violation or misapplication of state…