Norman Cluke v. Gary Swarthout

MEMORANDUM

Norman E. Cluke appeals the district court’s denial of federal habeas relief. Cluke argues that the California trial court violated his right to testify under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments because the trial court had a constitutional obligation to ask Cluke personally whether Cluke wished to testify. Federal habeas relief may not be granted for claims subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) unless petitioner shows: (1) that the state court’s decision “was contrary to” clearly established Supreme Court law, § 2254(d)(1), Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); or (2) that it “involved an unreasonable application of’ such law, § 2254(d)(1); or (3) that it “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts” in light of the record before the state court, § 2254(d)(2). See, e.g., Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 , 131 S.Ct. 770 , 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). Because Cluke has failed to meet this high standard, we affirm.

First, Cluke points to no clearly established Supreme Court law indicating that a trial court has a constitutional obligation to personally inquire into a defendant’s desire to testify, instead Cluke relies…