Anthony
Anthony v. Lewis
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Michael Anthony, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. We AFFIRM.
I.
Anthony contends his trial counsel was ineffective because his attorney incorrectly stated he would be eligible for parole after serving 20 years of a 25-years-to-life sentence. In fact, Anthony will not be eligible for parole until he has served 25 years. See In re Cervera, 24 Cal.4th 1073 , 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 762 , 16 P.3d 176, 180-82 (2001). Counsel’s alleged statement did not, however, fall outside “the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” United States v. Signori, 844 F.2d 635, 638 (9th Cir.1988). Even if the alleged advice was deficient, Anthony has not shown he would have insisted on going to trial. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). Evidence of Anthony’s guilt was overwhelming, and if Anthony had been convicted, he would not have *996 received the ten-year reduction included in the plea agreement. For the same reason, Anthony has not shown that his counsel was ineffective for advising him to enter a plea agreement that violated state law.