FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 25 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFONSO GONZALEZ, AKA Alonso No. 14-55939
Gonzalez,
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-09201-DSF-SP
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
PAT L. VAZQUEZ,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 5, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, W. FLETCHER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Alfonso Gonzalez appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
habeas corpus petition claiming that the California state trial court violated his due
process rights by failing to order a competency hearing sua sponte and conducting
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
his trial while he was incompetent. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
1. The California Court of Appeal reasonably determined that the evidence
was not sufficient to raise a “bona fide doubt” as to Gonzalez’s competency to
stand trial. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385 (1966); Odle v. Woodford, 238
F.3d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir. 2001). The record does not compel a finding that
Gonzalez had the kind of “history of pronounced irrational behavior” that would
require a trial court to order a competency hearing. Pate, 383 U.S. at 386; see also
Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 180 (1975) (holding that irrational behavior
alone may, in some circumstances, be sufficient to require a competency hearing).
Accordingly, we defer to the state court’s decision, as it was not based on an
unreasonable application of the law or an unreasonable determination of the facts.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2); see also Davis v. Ayala, 135 S. Ct. 2187, 2198 (2015).
2. We also defer to the California Court of Appeal’s summary denial of
Gonzalez’s claim that he was tried while actually incompetent because there was a
reasonable basis for the ruling. See Haney v. Adams, 641 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.
2011). The evidence before the state court on Gonzalez’s habeas corpus petition
did not definitively prove that he did not understand the proceedings against him or
2
was unable to consult with his attorney. See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396
(1993).
AFFIRMED.
3