Unpublished Disposition, 899 F.2d 18 (9th Cir. 1990)Annotate this Case
Robert Lee JAMES, Jr., Petitioner,v.William A. MERKLE, Respondent.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 23, 1990.* Decided April 5, 1990.
On Appeal From the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding.
Before KOELSCH, CHOY and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Robert Lee James, Jr. contends the district court erred in dismissing his Petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
His argument in sum is that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made because he was never advised of the mandatory parole term concomitant to the sentence.
The short answer to his proposition is found in Allen v. Bunnell, 891 F.2d 736, 736 (9th Cir. 1989). There we said that "at the time that defendant pleaded guilty, this circuit did not recognize a mandatory parole term as being a direct consequence of which the defendant must be apprised when pleading guilty. Therefore, acceptance of petitioner's guilty plea was not a violation of petitioner's right to due process despite the court's failure to advise him of the mandatory parole term.
The judgment is AFFIRMED.