Richard Brewer v. D. Runnels

MEMORANDUM

Richard Anthony Brewer (“Brewer”) appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Reviewing de novo, see Crittenden v. Ayers, 624 F.3d 943, 950 (9th Cir.2010), we affirm.

Brewer claims that his rights to due process and the effective assistance of counsel were violated when the state trial court excluded him from an in camera hearing regarding a potential conflict with his trial counsel and did not inform him of the essential facts disclosed in the hearing. Although Brewer waived the potential conflict before the state trial court, he now contends that the waiver was invalid because he was not fully informed.

The California Court of Appeal affirmed Brewer’s convictions and rejected Brewer’s claims of denial of effective assistance of counsel and due process. The state appellate court held that the trial court’s inquiries into the potential conflict and waiver were adequate, and that Brewer received effective assistance of counsel at all times.

The federal magistrate judge, considering Brewer’s § 2254 petition prior to the decision in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1388 , 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011), held an evidentiary hearing to…