Donovan Conner v. M D Biter, 5:12-cv-01131

Background

Petitioner Donovan Conner, a California state prisoner, was convicted of robbery and related offenses with gang enhancements; evidence included eyewitness IDs, physical items (cash, clothing, guns), and gang-expert testimony linking petitioner and codefendants to Tree Top Piru (TTP).
Multiple pretrial appearances spanned 2005–2008; petitioner made several statements interpreted as requests to represent himself at different hearings and intermittently acquiesced to counsel or agreed to continuances.
The state courts rejected claims on direct appeal and on collateral review; some claims received reasoned state-court decisions while others did not, implicating differing AEDPA deference standards.
Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition raising: (1) Sixth Amendment right to self-representation; (2) Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial; (3) insufficiency of evidence that a prior burglary was first-degree (strike); (4) multiple ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims; (5) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; and (6) insufficiency of evidence that the robbery was committed with specific intent to benefit a gang.
The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of the petition; the district court adopted the R&R largely, denied the petition on AEDPA and independent-review grounds, dismissed the action with prejudice, and denied a certificate of appealability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to self-representation	Conner says he clearly and unequivocally invoked Faretta several times and court ignored him	State courts: invocations were equivocal or were later abandoned; counsel representation was accepted	Denied — state-court findings upheld (abandonment sufficient even if one invocation arguably unequivocal)
Speedy trial	Trial started ~3 yrs 9 mo after arrest; Conner argues violation of Sixth Amendment	State courts: much delay attributable to competency proceedings, defense continuances, codefendant and limited prosecution delay; no demonstrated prejudice	Denied — Barker factors weigh against relief; no AEDPA error
Sufficiency of evidence re: prior burglary as first-degree (strike)	Conner: record insufficient to prove prior burglary was first-degree	State courts: fingerprint cards, plea transcript, judge’s on-the-record finding, and lack of objection support conclusion	Denied — under double-deference (Jackson + AEDPA) rational jury could find first-degree conviction
Sufficiency of evidence for gang enhancement (intent to benefit gang)	Conner: expert testimony speculative; no direct evidence of his personal intent	State: tattoos, monikers, phone contacts, co-defendants’ gang ties, backpack markings, gang expert tying robbery to gang benefit support jury inference	Denied — independent review finds evidence adequate for rational jury to infer gang intent
IAC — failure to assert speedy trial / move severance / other trial errors	Conner: trial counsel failed to move to dismiss under state speedy-trial statute, to sever, to pursue discovery, to retain experts, etc.	State courts: counsel’s actions were strategic or the claims lacked prejudice or were unlikely to succeed; many continuances were defense-driven	Denied — either performance not deficient or no prejudice shown under Strickland/AEDPA
IAC of appellate counsel (omissions in statement of facts & appeals)	Conner: appellate counsel omitted crucial facts about pro se requests and failed to raise meritorious issues	State: omissions were not prejudicial; omitted issues lacked merit	Denied — appellate choices reasonable; no showing of prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (defendant has Sixth Amendment right to self-representation if request is clear and unequivocal)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (four-factor test for speedy-trial claims)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence: whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1 (AEDPA deference standard applied to sufficiency-of-evidence/jury verdict review)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)