Ervin

Ervin v. Hubbard

Good Law
13 F. App'x 533
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 21, 2001No. 00-15980; D.C. No. CV-99-00838-FCDCalifornia1,282 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

*534 California prisoner Derick Wayne Ervin appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending his conviction and sentence for assault with a deadly weapon are unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 2254, and affirm.

Because Ervin filed his habeas petition after April 24, 1996, he is subject to the provisions of the AEDPA. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530 , 532 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc). Under the AEDPA, we may reverse a state court’s decision denying relief only if that decision is contrary to, or involves an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S .C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 402-13 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000); Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, -U.S.-, 121 S.Ct. 340 , 148 L.Ed.2d 274 (2000).

Ervin first contends the trial court violated the Sixth Amendment by improperly denying his motion to represent himself as untimely and for the purpose of delay. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 ,…

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.