Franks

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Peter Franks appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, challenging his conviction for burglary in the first degree and robbery in the third degree. Reviewing de novo the district court’s decision to deny Franks’ habeas petition, Himes v. Thompson, 336 F.3d 848, 852 (9th Cir.2003), and applying standards set forth by the Antiterrorism and Effective *995 Death Penalty Act of 1996, 110 Stat. § 1214, see Lockhart v. Terhune, 250 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm.

Franks argues that the trial court’s denial of his request to substitute counsel violated Franks’ right to the effective assistance of counsel. The Oregon courts did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law in rejecting this argument. Franks cannot show, for example, that the trial court’s decision resulted in a complete lack of communication between Franks and his attorney, either because of a conflict between them, see, e.g., Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017 , 1026 & n. 8 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), or because the trial court forced Franks to choose between incompetent counsel and no counsel at all, see, e.g., Crandell v. Bunnell, 144…