Document: 546 U.S. 1 ANTHONY KANE, WARDENv.JOE GARCIA ESPITIA. No. 04-1538. Supreme Court of United States. Decided October 31, 2005. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT. PER CURIAM. Respondent Garcia Espitia, a criminal defendant who chose to proceed pro se, was convicted in California state court carjacking and other offenses. He had received no law library access while jail before trial—despite his repeated requests orders the contrary—and only about four hours during trial, just closing arguments. (Of course, he declined, as right, be represented by lawyer with unlimited legal materials.) The courts rejected argument that restricted violated Sixth Amendment rights. Once sentence became final, petitioned Federal District for writ habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C. §2254. denied relief, but Appeals Ninth Circuit reversed, holding "the lack any pretrial lawbooks Espitia's constitutional right represent himself established Faretta [v. California, 422 806 (1975)]." Espitia v. Ortiz, 113 Fed. Appx. 802, 804 (2004). warden's petition certiorari respondent's motion leave forma pauperis are granted, judgment below case remanded. 2 A necessary condition federal relief here is court's decision "contrary to, or involv[e] an unreasonable application of, clearly law, determined States." §2254(d)(1). Neither opinion below, nor appellate cases it relies on, identifies source our than Faretta. See Appx., at (relying on Bribiesca Galaza, 215 F. 3d 1015, 1020 (CA9 2000) (quoting Milton Morris, 767 2d 1443, 1446 1985)); ibid. ("Faretta controls this case"). 3 have split whether Faretta, which establishes self-representation, implies se library. Compare Milton, supra, States Smith, 907 42, 45 (CA6 1990) ("[B]y knowingly intelligently waiving counsel, appellant also relinquished library"); ex rel. George Lane, 718 226, 231 (CA7 1983) (similar). That question cannot resolved here, however, clear does not, §2254(d)(1) requires, "clearly establis[h]" right. In fact, says nothing specific aid State owes defendant. therefore erred holding, based violation basis relief. 4 remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 5 It so ordered.

Category: 0