Case Name: Riki MUHAMMAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William WHITE; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-26
Citations: 372 F. App'x 732
Docket Number: No. 07-17201
Parties: Riki MUHAMMAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William WHITE; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 732–732

Head Matter:
Riki MUHAMMAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William WHITE; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-17201.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 26, 2010.
Riki Muhammad, Buckey, AZ, pro se.
Aaron Jay Moskowitz, Esq., Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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
William White is substituted for his predecessor, Dora Schriro, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
Arizona state prisoner Riki Muhammad appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we vacate and remand.
Muhammad contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for providing erroneous advice regarding the degree of intent that the state was required to prove at trial. Muhammad states that his reliance on this erroneous advice led him to reject a plea offer and this fact, coupled with the significant sentencing disparity, is sufficient to demonstrate prejudice. Muhammad alleges facts which, if proven, would entitle him to relief and, because he was never given a full and fair hearing in state court, he is entitled to a hearing in district court. We vacate the district court's denial of the habeas petition and remand for an eviden-tiary hearing to address the merits of Muhammad's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Houston v. Schomig, 533 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir.2008).
VACATED; REMANDED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.