Frank Lopez Martinez v. Guy Hall

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. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK LOPEZ MARTINEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GUY HALL,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-35070
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00293-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2011**
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Oregon State prisoner Frank Lopez Martinez appeals from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 27 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-35070 2
Lopez Martinez contends that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive
his right to counsel at sentencing. Contrary to his contention, the deferential
AEDPA standard of review applies to Lopez Martinez’s claim. See Harrington v.
Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 784 (2011) (“Where a state court’s decision is
unaccompanied by an explanation, the habeas petitioner’s burden still must be met
by showing there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief.”)
The state court’s determination that Lopez Martinez’s waiver was knowing
and voluntary was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly
established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77,
92-93 (2004). In addition, our independent review of the record indicates that the
state court’s adjudication was not based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --