ineffective assistance, see McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 770, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); Doganiere v. United States, 914 F.2d 165, 168 (9th Cir.1990), “the gross mischaracterization of the likely outcome [of the plea], combined with the erroneous advice on the possible effect of going to trial, falls below the level of competence required of defense attorneys.” See Iaea v. Sunn, 800 F.2d 861, 865 (9th Cir.1986) and Chacon v. Wood, 36 F.3d 1459, 1464 (9th Cir.1994), overruled on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Likewise, “counsel’s misrepresentations as to what [a defendant’s] sentence in fact would be” may render a defendant’s plea involuntary. Chizen v. Hunter, 809 F.2d 560, 562 (9th Cir.1986); Mayes v. Pickett, 537 F.2d 1080, 1083-84 (9th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>) In this case, during the post-conviction
recognizing a presumption that a plea of guilty is final and binding if the plea was made during a properly conducted hearing pursuant to rule 11 of the federal rules of criminal procedure holding that even an exemplary rule 11 record in a federal plea proceeding was inadequate to determine the appellants claims of involuntariness where he asserted that his attorney made promises regarding his sentence holding that promises made in a plea agreement could violate 18 usc  201c holding that defendant received requisite notice under rule 11 where inter alia he acknowledged at plea hearing that he had read the information understood it and discussed it with his attorney holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his sentence because he did not object at trial