Case ID: f-appx_449/html/0702-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Armondo Gibb ORTEGA, Petitioner— Appellant, v. John W. HAVILAND, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 10-16876.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 1, 2011.
    
    Filed Sept. 14, 2011.
    Robert Bratberg, Santa Rosa, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    
      Jill M. Thayer, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: WALLACE, BERZON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Ortega appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Ortega contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at his motion for a new trial because Ortega drafted and argued the motion with minimal assistance from counsel. Because Ortega does not show that the California Court of Appeal’s determination that Ortega was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), the district court did not err in denying the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).

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