Armando Avila-Lucas v. Brian Belleque

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ARMANDO AVILA-LUCAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN BELLEQUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-36054
D.C. No. 6:07-cv-01157-AA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Armando Avila-Lucas 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.
Avila-Lucas contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance
FILED
OCT 4 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-36054 2
by failing to advise him of the highest minimum sentence he faced. The state
court’s determination that Avila-Lucas was not denied the right to effective
assistance of counsel was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 785 (2011).
Avila-Lucas also contends that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and
intelligent. The state court’s contrary determination was not an unreasonable
application of Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Hill v.
Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-58 (1985). To the extent Avila-Lucas’s claim is based
on the state court’s refusal to admit the Mexican Consul’s affidavit, his claim is not
cognizable. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011) (per curiam)
(federal habeas relief does not lie for errors of state law).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --