Edwin Gregory v. William Duncan

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWIN GREGORY, No. 11-17494

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:98-cv-06521-LJO-MJS

v.

MEMORANDUM *

WILLIAM DUNCAN, Warden; and

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 14, 2013 San Francisco, California

Before: NOONAN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner appeals the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Reviewing de

novo, Williams v. Warden, 422 F.3d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 2005), we affirm.

1. The California Court of Appeal’s decision did not "involve[] an

unreasonable application of[] clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Supreme Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The court…

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner appeals the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Reviewing de novo, Williams v. Warden, 422 F.3d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir.2005), we affirm.

1. The California Court of Appeal’s decision did not “involve[] an unreasonable *539 application of[ ] clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). The court correctly identified the governing principles from Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993), and Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 , 90 S.Ct. 1463 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970). It treated Petitioner’s repeated and explicit decision not to challenge his competence as a concession of competence. We are unaware of any Supreme Court case suggesting that the court could not do so. The state court viewed the evidence as relating only to Petitioner’s competence. Although one could consider the evidence to relate to more than just competence, it was not unreasonable for the court to interpret it as relating only to his competence. That being so, the court was left with: (a) a concession that Petitioner met the competence prong of Godinez and (b) no evidence of any reason…

dissenting:

The California Court of Appeal stated the correct principles, but decided the case contrary to the federal constitution as decided by the Supreme Court. The California Court of Appeal did so by its illogical reasoning. The court made two errors of logic:

(1) It held that if a defendant pleaded, the defendant could not attack his plea on the basis of incompetence.

(2) It held that if the defendant was competent to plead, then the defendant was competent to waive other constitutional rights.

Both propositions are contrary to federal law as stated by the Supreme Court.

Summarizing its own holdings, the Supreme Court stated in Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 400 , 113 S.Ct. 2680 , 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993):

As found by both the California Superior Court and by the federal magistrate, Gregory was not competent to plead or to waive his constitutional rights. His conviction should not stand.