Case Name: Tommy NAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randolph L. CANDELARIA, Warden; E.S. Alameida, Jr., Director California Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-05
Citations: 143 F. App'x 773
Docket Number: No. 04-56521
Parties: Tommy NAYLOR, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Randolph L. CANDELARIA, Warden; E.S. Alameida, Jr., Director California Department of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 143
Pages: 773–774

Head Matter:
Tommy NAYLOR, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Randolph L. CANDELARIA, Warden; E.S. Alameida, Jr., Director California Department of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-56521.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 2, 2005.
Decided Aug. 5, 2005.
Sean K. Kennedy, Esq., John L. Littrell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
John Peter Lee, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Civil & Tax Divisions, Donald E. De Nicola, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The state trial judge was not confronted with a "bona fide doubt" as to Naylor's competence to conduct his own defense. See Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172-73, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). The state court's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to compel a competency hearing is not "an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Thus, Naylor's habeas petition was properly denied. See id.; Torres v. Prunty, 223 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir.2000).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.