Carrasco

MEMORANDUM *

Victor Carrasco pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon by a prisoner. He appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. Carrasco’s principal argument is that his counsel was ineffective.

Under Hill v. Lockhart, “the two-part Strickland v. Washington test applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel.” 1 Assuming without deciding that the failure of Carrasco’s attorney to identify, locate, and interview the inmate witnesses who later submitted affidavits and declarations fell “below an objective standard of reasonableness,” 2 Carrasco’s claim fails because he cannot establish prejudice. Although the record demonstrates that Carrasco was reluctant to plead guilty, it does not show that he would not have done so had his lawyer interviewed the inmates.

In Hill v. Lockhart, the Supreme Court explained that “[i]n order to satisfy the ‘prejudice’ requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he *581 would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” 3 The Court elaborated on this standard, saying that “where the alleged error…