Opinion ID: 3029823
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The California Court of Appeal’s decision was

Text: based on a reasonable determination of the facts [3] The California Court of Appeal was free to affirm the trial court on any basis supported by the record.18 In this case, the record supports the court of appeal’s affirmance on untimeliness grounds. Marshall made his request to represent himself on the day his trial was to commence and after several continuances of his trial. Moreover, Marshall presented no facts to show that his last-minute request was reasonable. Thus, he could have made his request much earlier than the day of trial. These unrebutted facts19 provide clear support for the California Court of Appeal’s decision that Marshall’s Faretta request was untimely.20 Therefore, Marshall is not 18 See Hamilton v. Groose, 28 F.3d 859, 862 n.3 (8th Cir. 1994) (stating that where “the state court record fairly support[ed] the [state appellate court’s] finding that [defendant] did not unequivocally invoke his right to represent himself,” it did not matter that state trial judge, in denying Faretta request, “expressed his concerns about [defendant’s] ability to represent himself”). 19 We must accept the court of appeal’s factual determinations as correct unless Marshall rebutted them with clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Marshall did not do so. 20 This is not a case where timeliness “could not have been, and was not in fact, the reason for the trial court’s decision.” Bribiesca v. Galaza, 215 MARSHALL v. TAYLOR 583 entitled to habeas relief on the ground that the court of appeal’s decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.