Kalamice Piggee v. William Muniz

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 26, 202422-55770California1,336 words

Opinion

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KALAMICE K. PIGGEE, No. 22-55770

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-07384-FLA-SK v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ, Warden, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 6, 2024 Pasadena, California

Before: OWENS, BUMATAY, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

Kalamice Piggee, a state criminal defendant, appeals the district court’s denial

of his habeas corpus petition. Piggee alleges that his federal due process rights were

violated when, after a prior determination that Piggee had been restored to

competence to stand trial, the state trial court did not grant Piggee’s subsequent

request for a competency hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 28 U.S.C.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.