Ramirez

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I believe that Ramirez waived the issues certified for appeal, and so I dissent. A habeas petitioner who fails to address the issues certified for appeal waives those issues. Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1048 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that “in general, we will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s opening brief.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted). In this case, Ramirez failed to specifically and distinctly argue the issues certified for appeal. Instead, he presented topic headings properly enumerating the certified issues, and then used facts that might have supported argument on the certified issues to argue something completely different.

The predominant issue that was certified for appeal is whether Ramirez was prejudiced when, at the preliminary hearing stage, the state court denied his motion for self-representation pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). Instead of arguing this issue, Ramirez claims that his Faretta motion, which was eventually granted at the trial stage, was involuntary, and that he should…

MEMORANDUM *

California state prisoner Alfonso Ramirez appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for grand theft and carjacking. We affirm.

I.

That there exists a timeliness element of a Faretta request for self-representation is clearly established federal law for purposes of habeas review. Marshall v. Taylor, 395 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir.2005). Because the Supreme Court has not established exactly what makes a Faretta request timely, beyond the holding in Far-etta itself that “weeks before trial” is sufficient, other courts are free to determine standards of their own. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835-36 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). We have previously upheld the California standard that a Faretta motion to represent oneself *78 at trial, made the day of trial, is untimely. Id. at 1061-62.

Ramirez’s request for self-representation at his preliminary hearing was made on the same day as the preliminary hearing itself. The right to self-representation is certainly no more important at the preliminary hearing than at trial. See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 57 , 53 S.Ct. 55 , 77 L.Ed.…