Merwin Michael HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN and Terry Goddard, Respondents-Appellees, 393 F. App'x 461

MEMORANDUM Arizona state prisoner Merwin Michael Hill appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Hill contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel rendering his guilty plea involuntary because his trial counsel failed to interview several witnesses before Hill pled guilty and his trial counsel failed to challenge the sufficiency of the State’s evidence supporting the “serious physical injury” element of Hill’s aggravated assault charge.

However, the Arizona court’s denial of Hill’s claims was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57-59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (holding that two-part Strickland v. Washington test applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publi-1 cation and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.