David Chandler v. Sharon Blacketter

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner David George Chandler (“Chandler”) seeks habeas corpus relief from his conviction in Oregon state court. We review the district court’s denial of habeas relief de novo. Bribiesea v. Galaza, 215 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.2000). Chandler carries the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to habeas relief, Silva v. Woodford, 279 F.3d 825, 835 (9th Cir.2002), and is only entitled to such relief if the state court decision he challenges was “contrary to ... clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Since Chandler has failed to identify any clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, holding that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel cannot be forfeited through particularly egregious conduct, the district court properly denied his application.

Although the Supreme Court has never directly held that the right to counsel can be forfeited, the Court has also never held to the contrary, and has held that another fundamental Sixth Amendment right — the right to be present at one’s own trial — can be forfeited through misconduct.…