Summary Calendar MARION JBEASON v. Charles Cfoti, Jr

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-30250
Summary Calendar
MARION J BEASON
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
CHARLES C FOTI, JR
Defendant-Appellee
WARDEN WINN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, also known as Tim Wilkerson
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:05-CV-589
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marion J. Beason, Louisiana prisoner # 275660, appeals from the district
court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. This court granted a certificate
of appealability on the issue whether trial counsel was ineffective with respect
to advising Beason about his parole eligibility. Beason argues that the trial
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 15, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-30250
2
judge, trial counsel, and the prosecutor conspired to coerce him to plead guilty
and that the trial judge should have recused himself. The court lacks
jurisdiction to hear these issues. See § 2253(c)(1)(C); Brooks v. Dretke, 404 F.3d
924, 926 (5th Cir. 2005).
“To prove prejudice for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the
context of a guilty plea, the habeas petitioner must show that ‘there is a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded
guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.’” Bond v. Dretke, 384 F.3d 166,
167-68 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985)).
The record contains evidence that counsel did misadvise Beason that his
was eligible for parole, when in fact the relevant statutes prohibited parole.
Nevertheless, Beason cannot establish prejudice because the guilty plea
transcript reflects that the trial judge advised Beason on two occasions that he
would not be eligible for parole should he plead guilty. Beason affirmed that he
understood the court’s admonishments. See United States v. Lampazianie, 251
F.3d 519, 524 (5th Cir. 2001). Thus, Beason cannot demonstrate that, but for
counsel’s error, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted upon
going to trial. See Bond, 384 F.3d at 168.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --