Winters

MEMORANDUM *

California state prisoner Alan Winters appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Winters argues that the state court’s failure to hold a second competency hearing violated his right to due process. We conclude that Winters’ argument is without merit. The state court correctly applied the Supreme Court cases that address the need for competency hearings. Further, the state court was not unreasonable in its determination that the evidence of incompetency fell below the threshold of “substantial evidence” raising a bona fide doubt as to competency. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying relief.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . The district court’s jurisdiction was pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. We review de novo the district court’s decision to grant or deny a § 2254 habeas petition. Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a federal court can grant habeas relief only if the state court’s decision was: (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court; or (2) resulted in a decision that was…