Thompson v. Woodford

Ninth Circuit

Thompson v. Woodford

377 F. App'x 639

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 22, 2010

Docket07-56721

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 377 F. App'x 639 (Thompson v. Woodford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Woodford, 377 F. App'x 639 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Travis Ray Thompson appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.

Thompson contends that the trial court violated his rights under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), when it revoked his pro per status mid-trial. The California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834 n. 46, 95 S.Ct. 2525.

Thompson also contends that the introduction of extrinsic evidence into the jury deliberations violated his Sixth Amendment rights. The California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Bayramoglu v. Estelle, 806 F.2d 880, 887 (9th Cir.1986) (citing Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87, 84 S.Ct. 229, 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963)). We reject Thompson’s contention that an evidentiary hearing was required with regard to this matter. See Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982); see also Tracey v. Palmateer, 341 F.3d 1037, 1044-45 (9th Cir.2003).

We construe Thompson’s uncertified claim, that his Faretta advisements were inadequate, as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-Re); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Travis Ray Thompson appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2258, and we affirm.

Thompson contends that the trial court violated his rights under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), when it revoked his pro per status mid-trial. The California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834 n. 46, 95 S.Ct. 2525.

Thompson also contends that the introduction of extrinsic evidence into the jury deliberations violated his Sixth Amendment rights. The California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Bayramoglu v. Estelle, 806 F.2d 880, 887 (9th Cir.1986) (citing Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87, 84 S.Ct. 229, 11 L.Ed.2d 171 (1963)). We reject Thompson’s contention that an evidentiary hearing was required with regard to this matter. See Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215, 102 S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982); see also Tracey v. Palmateer, 341 F.3d 1037, 1044-45 (9th Cir.2003).

We construe Thompson’s uncertified claim, that his Faretta advisements were inadequate, as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-Re); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 F. App'x 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-woodford-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack