Menchaca

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Stephen Menchaca appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition alleging that his Sixth Amendment right to trial counsel was violated due to a conflict of interest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

We review the district court’s decision to deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition de novo. Lockhart v. Terhune, 250 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir.2001). But under the AED-PA, we may grant habeas relief only if the constitutional error resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. Id.

Menchaca contends that there existed an actual conflict of interest during his trial for attempted murder of his wife because after trial but before sentencing, trial counsel was granted a motion for substitution under People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 , 84 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 465 P.2d 44 (1970). Menchaca asserts that counsel’s request for substitution conclusively demonstrates an actual conflict that existed throughout the trial proceedings. Furthermore, Menchaca contends that the conflict…