Keith Jensen v. Robert Hernandez
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Keith Hugh Jensen appeals from the district court’s order conditionally granting his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on his claims of constitutional error under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). Jensen argues that the remedy ordered by the district court is insufficient to redress his constitutional injury and that the appropriate remedy is vacatur of his conviction unless the state initiates proceedings to retry him within 90 days. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.
“A district court’s determination of the appropriate remedy for a constitutional violation on a habeas petition is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Johnson v. Uribe, 700 F.3d 413, 424 (9th Cir.2012), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 617 , 187 L.Ed.2d 409 (2013). “[A] district court abuses its discretion “when it makes an error of law, when it rests its decision on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or when we are left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1086 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc)).