Baylis

MEMORANDUM **

Patrick Baylis appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition based on an alleged violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choosing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

1. We assume without deciding that Baylis exhausted his claims and that his arguments are not waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(2).

2. The state court’s decision to deny Baylis’ motion for substitution of counsel was neither contrary to nor involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Baylis’ chosen counsel had previously represented Baylis’ brother and the state court could reasonably determine that Baylis’ defense strategy was likely to be that the brother committed the offenses for which Baylis was on trial. Under these circumstances, the state courts reasonably applied Supreme Court precedent in denying Baylis’ request to substitute counsel. See Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 164 , 108 S.Ct. 1692 , 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988) (the presumption that a criminal defendant may have counsel of his choice “may be overcome not only by a demonstration of actual…