Lerma

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Emiliano Zandro Lerma (“Lerma”) challenges the District Court’s dismissal of his habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He claims that his due process right was violated when the trial court failed to address his request for new counsel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review the District Court’s denial of the habeas petition de novo. Cockett v. Ray, 333 F.3d 938, 941 (9th Cir.2003). For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM.

I.

Lerma is procedurally barred from raising a due process claim because he did not comply with the procedural rule announced in Palmer v. State, 318 Or. 352 , 867 P.2d 1368 (1994). The Palmer rule effectively precludes state post-conviction relief for a petitioner who fails to raise his claim in an underlying criminal proceeding or on direct appeal unless the petitioner asserts that the failure to raise his claim was due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 1371.

Lerma failed to take steps to preserve adequately on direct appeal his objection to his trial counsel’s representation. He did not stress to the trial court his desire to seek substitute counsel. He failed to ask his newly retained…