Gerald Keeler v. Sierra Conservation Center

MEMORANDUM

Gerald D. Keeler (“Keeler”) appeals the district court’s denial of Keeler’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a habeas corpus petition. Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 964-65 (9th Cir.2004).

Keeler argues that the state superior court’s denial of his request to continue his probation revocation hearing violated Keeler’s right to due process.

Keeler is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief because he has not shown that the denial of his continuance was “contrary to, or involved 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). He also has not shown that the denial was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” Id. § 2254(d)(2).

First, Keeler has not shown that by denying the continuance request, the state trial court violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by preventing him from hiring private counsel. Trial judges are afforded “broad discretion ... on matters of continuances; only an unreasoning and…