Joel Gomez v. Kelly Harrington , 522 F. App'x 393 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 11 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOEL GOMEZ, No. 11-16961
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00417-AWI-
DLB
v.
KELLY HARRINGTON, Warden, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: GOODWIN, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Joel Gomez appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus
petition. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review denial of a habeas petition de novo. Parker v. Small, 665 F.3d 1143,
1147 (9th Cir. 2011). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
(AEDPA), a petitioner is entitled to relief where he is in state custody as the result of
“a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of
the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
“Because the Supreme Court has treated the question whether a competency hearing
is required as an issue of fact,” this circuit has analyzed these decisions as “a
potentially unreasonable determination of the facts.” Torres v. Prunty, 223 F.3d 1103,
1107 (9th Cir. 2000). We “must be convinced that an appellate panel, applying the
normal standards of appellate review, could not reasonably conclude that the finding
is supported by the record.” Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2004).
California law requires that, after an initial finding of competency, a second
hearing is required only “if the evidence discloses a substantial change of
circumstances or new evidence is presented casting serious doubt on the validity of
the prior finding.” People v. Medina, 11 Cal. 4th 694, 734 (1995). In light of the
deference due under AEDPA, we cannot say the California Court of Appeal
unreasonably determined that Gomez was not due a second competency hearing.
AFFIRMED.
-2-