Free Smith v. Derral Adams
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Free Odell Smith appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review the district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo. De Weaver v. Runnels, 556 F.3d 995, 997 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.
1. The California Court of Appeal reasonably concluded that Smith’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated by the trial court’s decision not to appoint new counsel at the pre-trial Marsden hearing. See People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 , 84 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 465 P.2d 44 (1970). The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a criminal defendant a “meaningful relationship” with his attorney. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 13 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983). Indeed, “no Supreme Court case has held that ‘the Sixth Amendment is violated when a defendant is represented by a lawyer free of actual conflicts of interest, but with whom the defendant refuses to cooperate because of dislike or distrust.’ ” Larson v. Palmateer, 515 F.3d 1057, 1067 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting Plumlee v. Masto, 512 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc)).