Joseph Becker v. M. Martel

MEMORANDUM

Warden M. Martel appeals the district court’s partial grant of inmate Joseph Becker’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We review de novo, Eslaminia v. White, 136 F.3d 1234, 1236 (9th Cir.1998), and reverse.

The California Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not need to re-advise Becker of his right to counsel following the addition of further charges against him. Becker is not entitled to habeas relief because that decision was not “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” nor was it “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1) — (2).

A criminal defendant may proceed without counsel “when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.” Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807, 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) (holding that a defendant “should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation” to equip him to make the self-representation decision “with eyes open”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Some courts have extended…