Deron Kincaid v. David Runnels

Good Law
450 F. App'x 649
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 21, 201109-16738California600 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Deron Kincaid appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a) and affirm.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a writ of habeas corpus may be granted only if the “last reasoned decision” by a state court “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Kincaid made a request to represent himself six days before jury selection began in his state court murder trial. The court granted Kincaid’s request but denied his further request for a continuance of the trial. The issue in this case is whether the state trial court violated Kincaid’s Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); see also Armant v. Marquez, 772 F.2d 552, 557-58 (9th Cir.1985) (holding that in certain circumstances the denial of a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.