Roe v Coursey

MEMORANDUM

John Patrick Roe appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a). Roe contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of his conditional right, under Oregon law, to waive a trial by jury and request a bench trial. Roe also contends that the district court erred when it denied his repeated requests to appoint habeas corpus counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We affirm because we conclude that the district court did not err in rejecting Roe’s contentions.

I

Roe contends that his counsel’s performance was deficient because she had a duty to consult with him regarding his conditional right, under Oregon law, to waive a jury trial and request a bench trial. According to Roe, by failing to do so, counsel acted unilaterally on a decision that was reserved to Roe and, thus, there was no valid waiver of his right to request a bench trial.

We review a state habeas petitioner’s “claims through the lens of AEDPA’s extremely deferential standard of review.” John-Charles v. California, 646 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir.2011). In order to be…