Armster Hampton v. MICHAEL S. EVANS, Warden

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. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMSTER HAMPTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL S. EVANS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-16031
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00550-ALA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Arthur L. Alarcón, Circuit Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Armster Hampton appeals 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
JAN 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16031 2
Hampton contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
accurately advise him of his maximum sentence exposure. He contends further
that his counsel’s failure to recommend that he accept a plea offer of eight years
provided the prosecution the opportunity to amend the charges to include a
previous felony.
The district court did not commit clear error when, after conducting an
evidentiary hearing, it found that Hampton failed to demonstrate “a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
688 (1984); see also Nunes v. Mueller, 350 F.3d 1045, 1053 (9th Cir. 2003)
(recognizing the right to effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations).
Further, the state court’s rejection of this claim was not contrary to or an
unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1).
As Hampton concedes, because the trial court properly relied on at least one
validly found factor in imposing his upper-term sentence, he is not entitled to relief
in his Cunningham claim. See Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 648-49 (9th Cir.
2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --