Curtis Scott v. Raul Lopez

MEMORANDUM

Curtis Scott contends the state trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). The California Court of Appeal rejected that claim because it concluded that Scott did not make an unequivocal request to represent himself and did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to counsel.

“A state court’s determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ on the correctness of the state court’s decision.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 , 131 S.Ct. 770, 786 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011) (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 , 124 S.Ct. 2140 , 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004)). Fairmind-ed jurists could disagree about the correctness of the state court’s determination that Scott fell short of invoking Faretta .

First, the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply Faretta in concluding that Scott never unequivocally requested to represent himself. Scott several times asked to represent himself immediately after being told he could not have a new attorney, and he ignored many of…