Unpublished Disposition, 931 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Thomas Dalton, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 1989), and we affirm.

Dalton contends his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because his written plea agreement was ambiguous as to whether a 24 month portion of his total sentence constituted an enhancement or was part of his mandatory minimum sentence.

To comport with due process, a guilty plea must be voluntary and intelligent. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-43 (1969). The defendant must be aware of the nature and elements of the charges against him and the possible punishment he faces. Id.; Iaea v. Sunn, 800 F.2d 861, 866 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, Dalton was aware he could be sentenced to no less than 153 months and no more than 195 months for each of the five counts in the amended information. The 24 months of which Dalton complains was a mandatory enhancement for his crimes, but was mistakenly characterized in his plea agreement as part of his mandatory minimum sentence. Regardless of the sentencing court's characterization of this 24 month period, Dalton could not have been, and was not, sentenced to more than 195 months for each count. Therefore, the district court did not err in determining that Dalton was aware of the possible sentence he faced.

AFFIRMED.