FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 21 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DORIAN D. BAILEY, No. 15-15955
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:10-cv-00084-TLN-CKD
v.
GREG LEWIS, Warden, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Convicted by a jury in California state court of multiple felony crimes
including kidnapping, forcible rape, and robbery, Bailey now appeals the district
court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Citing Drope v. Missouri,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
420 U.S. 162, 171-75 (1975), he claims that the state trial court deprived him of his
federal constitutional right to due process of law by failing to order sua sponte a
competency hearing to determine his mental competence to stand trial. See also
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (per curiam). The California Court of
Appeal rejected this claim in a reasoned opinion, and the California Supreme Court
affirmed Bailey’s conviction.
We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291
and 2253.
Section 2254(d) requires us to uphold a state court’s decision on a federal
constitutional claim unless that decision was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States; or the state court’s decision was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
state court proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86,
97-98 (2011).
On this record, we conclude that the California Court of Appeal’s decision
was free of legal error. Moreover, its determination and understanding of the
relevant facts was fully supported by the record. As the district court correctly
observed,
2
[I]t was reasonable [for the Court of Appeal] to find that
the evidence before the trial judge did not raise a “bona
fide doubt” about petitioner’s competency to stand trial.
While petitioner had a history of mental illness, likely
exacerbated by drug and alcohol use, none of the
psychiatric reports before the trial judge suggested that
petitioner could not understand what was happening at
trial or assist his own attorney.
AFFIRMED.
3