Mendoza

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Enrique Mendoza appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. Mendoza argues that the state trial court violated his due process rights by fading to conduct a competency hearing before accepting Mendoza’s guilty plea. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

We review the denial of a habeas petition de novo. Alcala v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir.2003). Mendoza’s petition is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which bars a federal court from granting habeas relief unless the state court’s adjudication on the merits resulted in a decision that was either (1) contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court or (2) based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented to the state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Pate v. Robinson, a state court must follow adequate procedures to protect against the conviction of a criminal defendant who is incompetent to stand trial. 383 U.S. 375, 386 ,…