N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R AIN DIC KEY-O’ B RIEN, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. JAM ES A. YATES, W arde n a nd ATTOR NEY GENER

AL OF THE STATE OF C A LIFOR

NIA, R

e sponde nt s - Appe lle e s . No. 13-16667 D.C . No. 2:07-c v-01241-WB SC KD
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m B . Shubb, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre s iding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 10, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, N.R . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s . R a in Dic ke y -O’ B rie n

a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for ha be a s c o rpus. The fa c ts a

re known to the pa

rtie s a nd will not be

re pe at e d he re . 

# FIL ED
D EC 22 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. 1He first c onte nds tha t the sta te tria l c ourt’ s de c ision to use C ALJIC 4.00 re nde re d his tria l funda

m e nta lly unfa ir. Se c ond, he c onte nds tha t two e v e nts tha

t oc c urre d during his trial c re at e d doubt c onc e rning his c om pe te n c y to sta nd tria l, re quiring the s tat e tria l c o urt to hold a c om pe te nc y he aring sua

sponte . The c la im tha t C ALJIC 4.00 doe s not c onform to the M ’N

aghte n te st fa ils be c a use the re wa s no showing tha t a ny viola tion of c le arly e sta

blishe d fe de ral

la w oc c urre d. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d)(1); se ealso Este llev . Mc Guire , 502 U.S. 62, 71-72 (1991) (“ [T] he fa c t tha t” a jury instruc tion wa s “ a lle ge dly inc orre c t unde r sta te la w is not a ba s is for ha

be a s re lie f.” ). As to thec om

pe te nc y at tria l issue , Dic ke y -O’ B rie n ide ntifie s two e ve nts that he argue s c re ate d doubt. First, the tria l c ourt judgenote d

unspe c ifie d

“ diffic ultie s.” Se c ond, on thesa m e da y , the prose c utor note d tha t Dic ke y -O’ B rie n ha d sa t “ ne arly m o tionle ss a

nd m ute ” during the tria l. At ora l a rgum e nt, his
c ounse l a c k

nowle dge d tha

t the re c o rd c onta ins no other re fe re nc e s to e ithe r e ve nt.

“ [T] he fa ilure to obse rve proc e dure s a de quate to prote c t a de fe nda nt’ s right not to betrie d or c onvic t e d while inc om p e te nt to sta

nd tria l de p rive s him

of his due proc e s s right to a

fa ir tria l.” Drope v . Missouri , 420 U.S. 162, 172 (1975). A c ourt
m ust c o nduc t a

he aring sua

sponte i f it ha s a

“ bona fide doubt” a s to the de fe nda nt’ s c om pe te nc y . M

ax w e ll v . Roe , 606 F.3d 561, 568 (9th C ir. 2010).

2“ Ge nuine doubt” rathe r tha n “ sy nthe t ic or c onstruc t ive doubt” is re quire d. de K aplany v . Enomoto , 540 F.2d 975, 982-83 (9th C ir. 1976). W ithout more , the two e ve nts ide ntifie d by Dic ke y -O’ B rie n a

re insuffic ie nt to m e e t the “ high ba

r” for e sta blishing a bona fide doubt. Se eC

l ark v . Arnold

, 769 F. 3d 711, 729 (9th C ir. 2014). TheC a lifornia Distric t C ourt of Appe a l did not
unre a s ona

bly a pply c le arly

e sta blishe d fe d e ra l la

w whe n it de t e rm i ne d tha t the sta te tria l c ourt wa s not re quire d to c o nduc t a c om pe te nc y he aring. AFFIRM E D

3