Lavarius Mccord v. State of California

MEMORANDUM

Lavarius Jermaine McCord (“McCord”) appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

In denying McCord’s habeas petition, the district court concluded that McCord failed to show that an irreconcilable conflict existed between himself and appointed counsel and that McCord’s trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. We agree.

“The right to counsel does not guarantee ‘a right to counsel with whom the accused has a meaningful attorney-client relationship.’” Daniels v. Woodford, 428 F.3d 1181, 1197 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 3-4 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983)). A state court’s denial of a Marsden motion amounts to a constitutional violation where there was an irreconcilable conflict between the defendant and counsel which prevented effective representation. Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1026 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). At McCord’s Marsden hearing, the trial court questioned defense counsel in response to McCord’s allegations that he was “getting inadequate representation.” Defense counsel explained that he had performed a “vast amount…