William Allen Marshall v. Don Taylor, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

Good Law
395 F.3d 1058·2005 WL 79058·2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 594
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 13, 200503-56836California2,083 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

William Allen Marshall appeals the district court’s denial of his writ of habeas corpus for an alleged violation of Faretta v. California. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . Marshall asked to represent himself on the morning of his state court trial. The state trial court denied his request on the impermissible ground that Marshall lacked the requisite skill and knowledge to represent himself. The California Court of Appeal affirmed on the proper ground that Marshall’s request was untimely. Marshall now contends (1) that the court of appeal’s decision was contrary to Faretta and (2) that its finding of untimeliness was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. We disagree. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of Marshall’s ha-beas petition.

I. BACKGROUND

Prior to jury selection on the morning of Marshall’s state court trial, Marshall moved for a change of counsel or, in the alternative, to represent himself pursuant to Faretta. Although the court expressed concern that Marshall was trying to delay trial by moving for new counsel, the reason the court ultimately specified for denying his Faretta request was that Marshall lacked the skills…

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.