Mickle

INTRODUCTION

17 Petitioner has filed a brief addressing the merits of the Group III, Subgroup Two claims of 18 his habeas petition. Group III claims allege various constitutional violations stemming from 19 petitioner’s alleged incompetence to stand trial. Respondent has filed an opposition and petitioner 20 has filed a reply. Based on the record presented to date, the court finds and orders as follows.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

22 The following recitation of the factual background of this case is based on the Supreme 23 Court of California’s opinion disposing of petitioner’s direct appeal, People v. Mickle, 54 Cal. 3d 24 140 (1991). The state court’s factual determinations are presumed to be correct pursuant to 28 25 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). 26 In 1986, a jury in San Mateo County Superior Court sentenced petitioner to death 27 following a conviction of first-degree murder and arson. The jury also found true a special circumstance that he committed the murder while engaged in a lewd and lascivious act on a minor. Evidence at trial established that in February 1983, petitioner took up residence with the victim, twelve-year-old Lashan, and her parents, Darrell Knighten…