Robert Mccrary, Petitioner-appellant, v. William Duncan, Warden, Respondent-appellee, 108 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 1997)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Robert McCrary, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo. Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 739 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.

McCrary contends his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the state trial court denied his motion for substitute counsel. We disagree.

When evaluating a trial court's denial of a motion for new counsel, a reviewing court should consider "the timeliness of the motion, the adequacy of the court's inquiry into the defendant's complaint, and whether the conflict between the defendant and his counsel was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense." Hudson v. Rushen, 686 F.2d 826, 829 (9th Cir. 1982).

After reviewing the record, we are satisfied that substitution of counsel was not required by the Constitution. See id. To the extent that McCrary argues that counsel was ineffective, we reject the claim on the ground that counsel's performance was not deficient. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

AFFIRMED.