Anthony Wafer v. Anthony Hedgpeth

MEMORANDUM

Anthony Wafer appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his convictions for robbery, burglary, assault and murder in connection with a string of small business robberies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , we review de novo, see White v. Martel, 601 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

1. We need not determine whether Wafer’s claim under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), was procedurally defaulted. Because the claim was addressed by the district court and has been fully briefed, we exercise our discretion to deny the claim on the merits. See Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758 , 777 n. 10 (9th Cir.2012) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(2) and Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir.1999)).

Although Wafer asserts his February 1999 Faretta request was unequivocal under United States v. Hernandez, 203 F.3d 614, 621-23 (9th Cir.2000), abrogated in part by Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 , 128 S.Ct. 2379 , 171 L.Ed.2d 345 (2008), and Adams v. Carroll, 875 F.2d 1441, 1444-45 (9th Cir.1989), the California Court of Appeal’s contrary conclusion was a reasonable- determination of…