Leyvas

MEMORANDUM *

The state trial court’s determination that Leyvas knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel was not “contrary to, or ... an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

The court reasonably credited the opinion of Leyvas’s preliminary hearing counsel in determining whether a competency hearing was necessary. Leyvas’s hypertension, migraine headaches and dizziness, and his accusations that appointed counsel was conspiring against him, did not give the court reason to doubt his competency, and thus did not require a hearing. See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , 401 n. 13, 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993).

The court reasonably determined that Leyvas’s waiver of his right to counsel was unequivocal. The court asked Leyvas whether he wanted to represent himself, and he responded, “Yeah. I’ll represent myself.” The court then listed the benefits Leyvas was foregoing and asked if he understood, to which he responded, “I most certainly do.” Finally, the court asked whether he thought he could perform as counsel, and he said, ‘Tes, ma’am, I do.” Leyvas’s…