Rasul

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona prisoner Mikel Omar Rasul appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Rasul argues that his right to counsel was violated when the Arizona Court of Appeals refused to provide him with counsel on his direct appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review the district court’s denial of Rasul’s habeas petition de novo. Handa v. Clark, 401 F.3d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir.2005). The decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals is reviewed under the Antiterrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“AEDPA”). See Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 70-71 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). We reverse.

In Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963), the Supreme Court held that equal protection guarantees a defendant the right to appointed counsel on direct appeal. See also Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 , 105 S.Ct. 830 , 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985) (holding that due process requires effective appointed counsel on direct appeal). The Court reaffirmed that right most recently in Halbert v. Michigan, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 2582 , — L.Ed.2d…