Charles Smith v. M. McDonald
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Charles Ray Smith argues that he was unrepresented by counsel at his competency hearing, a critical stage of his pretrial criminal proceedings, in violation of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 , 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2047 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). Smith also argues that we must review his federal habeas claim de novo, and not under the deferential standard in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), because the “state courts failed to adjudicate [his] Cronic claim.” Finally, Smith argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for an evidentiary hearing.
We first address Smith’s “adjudication on the merits” argument, because it affects our standard of review. When a state’s highest appellate court summarily rejects a petitioner’s federal claims, we “look through” summary denials to the last reasoned state court decision. Cannedy v. Adams, 706 F.3d 1148, 1159 (9th Cir.2013), amended on denial of reh’g, 733 F.3d 794 (9th Cir.2013), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 1001 , 187 L.Ed.2d 863 (2014). The last reasoned decision concerning Smith’s sole federal claim before us is the California Court of Appeal’s May 15, 2009 opinion.