Thompson v. Woodford , 377 F. App'x 639 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TRAVIS RAY THOMPSON, No. 07-56721
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-06-01758-JAH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEANNE S. WOODFORD, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Travis Ray Thompson appeals from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and 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).
Thompson contends that the trial court violated his rights under Faretta v.
California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), when it revoked his pro per status mid-trial. The
California Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to,
nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1); see also Faretta, 422 U.S. at 834 n. 46.
Thompson also contends that the introduction of extrinsic evidence into the
jury deliberations violated his Sixth Amendment rights. The California Court of
Appeal’s decision rejecting this claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also
Bayramoglu v. Estelle, 806 F.2d 880, 887 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Fahy v.
Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 (1963)). We reject Thompson’s contention that
an evidentiary hearing was required with regard to this matter. See Smith v.
Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 215 (1982); see also Tracey v. Palmateer, 341 F.3d 1037,
1044-45 (9th Cir. 2003).
We construe Thompson’s uncertified claim, that his Faretta advisements
were inadequate, as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So
2 07-56721
construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood,
195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 07-56721