Case Name: Robert James MENEFEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. L.S. McEWEN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-11
Citations: 587 F. App'x 417
Docket Number: No. 13-17046
Parties: Robert James MENEFEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. L.S. McEWEN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 587
Pages: 417–418

Head Matter:
Robert James MENEFEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. L.S. McEWEN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-17046.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2014.
Filed Dec. 11, 2014.
James M. Warden, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Jesse Noel Witt, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Rebecca Leigh Whitfield, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Fresno, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App.' P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Robert James Menefee appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Reviewing the district court's determination de novo, see Hurles v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768, 777 (9th Cir.2014), we affirm.
The state court determined that Mene-fee was not prejudiced under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), by his attorney's failure to inform him that he was subject to a five-year sentencing enhancement for a prior conviction. Menefee argues that, had he been made aware of this enhancement, he would have accepted a plea offer for a lower sentence than he ultimately received. Based on the record, the state court found that Menefee was made aware during a courtroom exchange between the prosecutor and trial judge, in Menefee's presence, that he faced 13 years in prison for his charges — a sentence that necessarily included a five-year enhancement. This was not an "unreasonable determination of the facts." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Because Menefee had rejected the plea deal he was offered with knowledge of his exposure to the five-year sentencing enhancement, the state court concluded he was not prejudiced by his attorney's lack of advice. This determination was not "contrary to, or . an unreasonable application of' Strickland. § 2254(d)(1).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.