Arthur Frank Sanford v. Municipal Court Citrus Judicial District

19 F.3d 29 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Arthur Frank SANFORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL COURT CITRUS JUDICIAL DISTRICT, et al., Respondents-Appellees. No. 93-55463. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 8, 1994. * Decided March 10, 1994. Before: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and TROTT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Arthur Sanford appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas corpus petition which contains two issues that this court had remanded for further inquiry on June 4, 1991: (1) whether Sanford was denied the right to counsel, and (2) whether the state breached his plea agreement. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 , and review this matter de novo, Chatman v. Marquez, 754 F.2d 1531, 1533-34 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 841 (1985), and we affirm. Waiving Right to Counsel 3 Under the Sixth Amendment, a criminal defendant has the right to waive his right to counsel and…