Unpublished Disposition, 940 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Patrick R. Hamlin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus. We review de novo, Carter v. McCarthy, 806 F.2d 1373, 1375 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 108 S. Ct. 198 (1987), and affirm.

Hamlin was convicted, following a guilty plea, for assault with a deadly weapon and attempted residential burglary. The trial court sentenced Hamlin to three years imprisonment on the assault with a deadly weapon conviction and, pursuant to Cal. Penal Code Sec. 667(a), added a five-year enhancement due to a serious prior felony conviction.

Hamlin contends that the state court deprived him of his constitutional rights by failing to inform him of his rights before accepting his admission of a serious prior felony conviction. Hamlin asserts that had the court explained to him that his admission to a serious prior felony conviction could enhance his prison term by five years, he would not have admitted to the conviction. This contention lacks merit.

To comport with due process, a guilty plea must be voluntary and intelligent. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-243 (1969). The defendant must be aware of the nature and elements of the charges and the possible punishment he faces. Id.; Iaea v. Sunn, 800 F.2d 861, 866 (9th Cir. 1986). In assessing the voluntariness of a guilty plea, statements made by the defendant contemporaneously with his plea should be accorded great weight. Chizen v. Hunter, 809 F.2d 560, 562 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-74 (1977)). "Contentions that in the face of the record are wholly incredible are subject to summary dismissal." Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 73-74 (1977).

Here, the information expressly alleged that Hamlin had been convicted of a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of Cal. Penal Code Sec. 667(a) and 1192.7(c) (18). The change of plea form signed by Hamlin also included this prior conviction. Moreover, the transcripts of the change of plea proceedings indicate that (1) the trial judge advised Hamlin of his constitutional rights, (2) Hamlin admitted to the prior serious felony conviction, and (3) Hamlin was fully aware that pleading guilty to the prior serious felony conviction would subject him to a five-year sentence enhancement. Because Hamlin's guilty plea was made knowingly and voluntarily, the district court properly dismissed his habeas petition.

AFFIRMED.