Opinion ID: 2680621
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Parker’s claims

Text: Mr. Parker posits two ineffective assistance of counsel claims. First, he alleges his counsel was not prepared for trial and instead recommended a guilty plea. As the OCCA and the district court concluded, the record shows he was prepared, and reasonable jurists would not debate otherwise. Second, he alleges his counsel’s misstatement of sentencing ranges for three of his six charges caused him to plead guilty rather than go to trial. To show prejudice, Mr. Parker must demonstrate he would not have pled guilty but for counsel’s errors. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985). A mere assertion is not enough. Miller v. Champion, 262 F.3d 1066, 1072 (10th Cir. 2001). Instead, “we look to the factual circumstances surrounding the plea to determine whether the petitioner would have proceeded to trial.” Id. Of the three misstated ranges, the trial court corrected one. Defense counsel overstated the other two- and four-year-minimums by two years each. These misstatements must be considered in the context of the three correctly stated 20-to-life sentence ranges. See supra note 2. Moreover, after holding a hearing on this issue, the state trial court found Mr. Parker would have pled guilty notwithstanding the two misstatements. Federal courts must accept this finding unless Mr. Parker contradicts it with clear and convincing evidence, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1), which he has not. Reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s denial of this claim. We therefore deny COA on ineffective assistance of counsel. 9