John P. Windfeldt v. Charles L. Ryan

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly,
Windfeldt’s request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN P. WINDFELDT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN, et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 08-17399
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01701-EHC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner John P. Windfeldt appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
MAY 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-17399 2
Windfeldt contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the
effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations because counsel failed to
adequately advise him of all the mental states included in the second-degree
murder charge. The state court’s conclusion that Windfeldt did not show a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, he would have
accepted the plea offer, was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of,
clearly established federal law, nor was it based on an unreasonable determination
of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d); Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985).
Windfeldt’s requests for transcripts are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --