Case ID: f-appx_393/html/0461-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Merwin Michael HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN and Terry Goddard, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 09-15058.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 26, 2010.
    Merwin Michael Hill, San Luis, AZ, pro se.
    Katia Mehu, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.
    
      Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Charles L. Ryan is substituted for his predecessor Dora B. Schriro as Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections. See Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arizona state prisoner Merwin Michael Hill 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.

Hill contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel rendering his guilty plea involuntary because his trial counsel failed to interview several witnesses before Hill pled guilty and his trial counsel failed to challenge the sufficiency of the State’s evidence supporting the “serious physical injury” element of Hill’s aggravated assault charge. However, the Arizona court’s denial of Hill’s claims was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57-59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (holding that two-part Strickland v. Washington test applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publi-1 cation and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.