Case Name: John P. WINDFELDT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-21
Citations: 473 F. App'x 612
Docket Number: No. 08-17399
Parties: John P. WINDFELDT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
John P. WINDFELDT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-17399.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 21, 2012.
John P. Windfeldt, Florence, AZ, pro se.
Robert Anthony Walsh, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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.
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, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985).
Windfeldt's requests for transcripts are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.