Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01509/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01509-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRECE RENE CHESTANG,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 14-cv-1509-BEN (PCL)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

vs. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

AMY MILLER, Warden

Respondent.

On June 10, 2014, Tyrece Rene Chestang, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Respondents filed an Answer. On November 10, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued

a thoughtful and thorough Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the

Petition be denied. On January 8, 2015, Petitioner filed Objections. 

BACKGROUND

On the first day of trial, Petitioner informed the court that he wanted to

represent himself during the trial because he was not satisfied with the performance

of his appointed counsel. The judge asked Petitioner if he was ready to proceed with

trial if he were to represent himself. Petitioner said he was not ready (“Not just this

moment.”). The trial judge denied his motion, the trial proceeded, Petitioner was

found guilty, and convicted. He now contends that he was denied his Constitutional

right to represent himself. 

The Report & Recommendation found that the petition is timely filed and that

- 1 - 14cv1509

Case 3:14-cv-01509-BEN-PCL Document 20 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

state remedies have been exhausted. Petitioner agrees. On the merits of the claim,

the Report & Recommendation recommends denying the petition based on Marshall

v. Taylor, 395 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2005). Petitioner objects to this conclusion. 

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Where a timely objection to a report and recommendation has been filed, the

district court reviews de novo those portions of the report or specific proposed

findings or recommendations to which the petitioner objected. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). Because Petitioner objects, this Court reviews the merits of the claims de

novo.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is

governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). 

See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 337 (1997). AEDPA states that a habeas

petition will not be granted with respect to any claim adjudicated on the merits in

state court proceedings unless that adjudication either: (1) resulted in a decision that

was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established

federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted

in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of

the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). A federal

court engages in a deferential review of the state court’s determination, and only

looks to see whether the state court’s decision was objectively unreasonable. See

Yarbrough v. Gentry, 540 U.S. 1, 4 (2003); Medina v. Hornung, 386 F.3d 872, 877

(9th Cir. 2004).

DISCUSSION

Here, Petitioner’s claim is precluded by Marshall. A defendant does have a

constitutional right to represent himself at trial according to Faretta v. California,

422 U.S. 806 (1975). However, a self-representation request must be timely and the

Supreme Court has never said that such a request is timely when made on the first

- 2 - 14cv1509

Case 3:14-cv-01509-BEN-PCL Document 20 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

day of trial. 

In Marshall, as is the case here, a defendant made his request to represent

himself on the morning of trial. Marshall, 395 F. 3d at 1061. The California courts

determined that the request was untimely. The Ninth Circuit, on appeal from the

denial of a federal habeas petition, determined that the state court decision was

neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Faretta, and affirmed the

denial of habeas relief. Marshall, 395 F. 3d at 1062. That decision controls the

outcome here. Having reviewed the petition de novo, the Report and

Recommendation is adopted and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it

enters a final order adverse to the applicant. Rule 11 foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In this

case, the Court finds that Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial

of a constitutional right, the issues are not debatable among jurists of reason, and a

court could not resolve the issues in a different manner. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). The questions are also not adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further. Accordingly, the Court denies a certificate of

appealability.

CONCLUSION

After de novo review of the petition and the record in this matter, the petition

for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The Court DENIES a certificate of

appealability because the issues are not debatable among jurists of reason and there

are no questions adequate to deserve encouragement. The Clerk of Court shall enter

judgment denying the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 9, 2015

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv1509

Case 3:14-cv-01509-BEN-PCL Document 20 Filed 03/09/15 Page 3 of 3