Pickett

MEMORANDUM **

Norman Charles Pickett, Jr., was convicted of rape under California Penal Code section 261. Now serving his sentence for that offense in a California state prison, he appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Pickett first argues that he was unconstitutionally compelled to wear jaüissued clothing during his trial. However, he did not inform Judge Sweet, who presided over the trial that ended in the rape conviction, that he wished to wear civilian clothing. Under such circumstances, there was no compulsion. Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 508-13 , 96 S.Ct. 1691 , 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976).

Pickett argues that he satisfied the objection requirement of Williams by raising the issue of prison clothing before the judge who presided over a prior trial that ended in a mistrial. However, the requirement of a timely objection is intended “to ensure that the [trial] court has an opportunity to cure any potential errors in the first instance.” United States v. Palmer, 3 F.3d 300, 304 (9th Cir.1993). Pickett did not offer Judge Sweet that opportunity.

Even if Pickett had properly objected to wearing prison clothing, he would…