Blanks

MEMORANDUM *

Christopher Fernando Blanks appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for *567 habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.

Blanks argues that his rights under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated when he was denied substitution of private counsel of his choice for appointed counsel. When we apply the standards set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d), as we must, 1 we are required to disagree.

In the first place, as we read the record, the state court did not deny Blanks substitution of private counsel of his choice, and if it had, Blanks has not shown that he was prejudiced thereby. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38 , 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1722 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). 2 Indeed, the right to have counsel of one’s choice is limited by one’s ability to retain private counsel. 3 The record indicates that Blanks did not have that ability.

Secondly, on this record, the law of California did not require an inquiry into Blanks’ relationship with appointed counsel. See People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118, 123-24 , 465 P.2d 44, 47-48, 84 Cal.Rptr. 156, 159-60 (1970); People v. Molina, 74 Cal.App.3d 544, 549 , 141 Cal.Rptr. 533,…