Opinion
Argued and Submitted July 13, 2005.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Carrie Leonetti, FPDCA--Federal Public Defender's Office, Fresno, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Lloyd Carter, AGCA--Office of the California Attorney General, Fresno, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Lawrence J. O'Neill, Magistrate, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-05949-LJO.
Before SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
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.
Willie Randle appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his convictions for rape, burglary, robbery, and personal use of a deadly weapon in the commission of the rape. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm.
Randle argues that the state trial court erred in denying as untimely his request for self-representation made two weeks prior to the beginning of trial. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). The state court's balancing of the factors identified in People v. Windham, 19 Cal.3d 121, 137 Cal.Rptr. 8, 560 P.2d 1187 (1977), to determine timeliness was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under Faretta. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 520-21, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003) ("In order for a federal court to find a state court's application of our precedent 'unreasonable,' the state court's decision must have been more than incorrect or erroneous. The state court's application must have been 'objectively unreasonable.' ") (citing Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 74-75, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000)).
AFFIRMED.