Howze

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Johnny Lee Howze appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which he challenged his conviction for first degree burglary and drug possession. Howze contends that his constitutional right to self-representation under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), was violated when the trial court denied his motion for self-representation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm.

A district court’s decision to deny a habeas petition is reviewed de novo. Ho v. Carey, 332 F.3d 587, 591 (9th Cir.2003). Howze’s petition was filed in April, 2002, after the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). Therefore, AEDPA’s provisions apply, and our review is limited by the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

In addressing Howze’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion for self-representation, the California Court of Appeal determined that Howze’s motion was untimely and made for the purpose of causing delay. Because Howze’s motion was made only two…