# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 22 60

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

La Vern e Koe ni g

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

St at e o f Nor th Dako ta

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Farg o

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 3, 2 01 3
Fil ed : J un e 1 9, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

La Vern e Koe ni g was co nv ic te d in a Nor th Dak ot a st at e co ur t of a cl as s B

m is de m ean or

. He ap pe al s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s d en ia l o f hi s pe ti ti on fo r ha be as

co rp us rel ie f un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 54

. Be c a u s e we co nc lu de th at Koe ni g was

im pr op erl y de ni ed hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to ap pe ll at e co un se l, we rev ers e an d

rem an d wi th di rect io ns

.I. Back gr ou nd

Koe ni g was ch arg ed un de r N.D. Cen t. Co de § 36 -1 1- 01 wit h th e m is de m ean or

of fen se of li ve st oc k ru nn in g at la rg e aft er th ree of hi s ho rs es were di sc ov ered ro am in g

free ly in hi s ne ig hb or s’ fie ld s. Dur in g th e tri al pr oc eed in gs in th e st at e di st ric t co ur t (s ta te tri al co ur t), Koe ni g en ga ge d in wha t can on ly be de sc rib ed as se ve ral la st

m in ut e di la to ry ta ct ic s th at de l a ye d an d co m pl ic at ed th is m at te r, in cl ud in g
di sc ha rg in g hi s co ur t ap po in te d at to rn ey le ss th an two week s be fo re tri al an d th en
wait in g u nt il th e m or ni ng of t ria l t o req ue st th at ne w c ou ns el be ap po in te d an d th at

a co nt in ua nc e be gr an te d. Afte r be in g ap po in te d ne w co un se l, Koe ni g ag ai n wait ed

un ti l th e m or ni ng of

tri al be fo re m ak in g a pro se m ot io n to di sq ua li fy th e jud ge an d

to req ue st an ot he r co nt in ua nc e of th e tri al

. Tha t m ot io n was de ni ed

, an d Koe ni g was

fo un d g ui lt y fo ll owi ng a jury tri al

. The st at e tri al co ur t se nt en ced Koe ni g to th irt y
da y s in th e Trai ll Co un ty Ja il

, bu t su sp en de d th e se nt en ce an d pl aced Koe ni g on on e

y ear o f un su pe rv is ed pro ba ti on

.

The reaf te r, Koe ni g fil ed two m ot io ns , on e fo r a ne w tri al ba se d pr im ari ly up on
cl ai m s th at hi s ap po in te d co un se l ha d pr ov id ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce at tri al an d th e

o t h er req ue st in g th e ap po in tm en t of ne w co un se l. In th e m ot io n fo r ne w co un se l

, Koe ni g req ue st ed th at hi s cu rren t c o u r t ap po in te d at to rn ey be rem ov ed an d ne w

co un se l ap po in te d “ to as si st in th e am en di ng an d pr es en ta ti on , of th is MOTION FOR

NEW TRIAL.” Koe ni g’s se co nd ap po in te d co un se l al so fil ed a m ot io n to wit hd raw.

Fo ll owi ng a he ari ng on th es e m ot io ns , th e st at e tri al co ur t m ad e a nu m be r of fact ua l

fin di ng s reg ard in g K oe ni g’s be ha vi or th ro ug ho ut th e tri al pr oc eed in gs , whi ch

cu lm in at ed in th e fo ll owi ng :

My ne xt fin di ng is th at th ro ug h y ou r m an ip ul at iv e co nd uc t, y ou , Mr. Koe ni g, ha ve f

o r f ei te d an y fu rth er or co nt in ue d rig ht to a pu bl ic
de fen de r.

-2

-Fi na ll y , I e x pl ic it ly fin d th at y ou r co nd uc t is th e fu nc ti on al

eq ui va le nt of a vo lu nt ary waiv er o f y ou r rig ht to co un se l, an d I f ur th er fin d t ha t t ha t wai ve r ha s b een kn owi ng ly and in te ll ig en tl y m ad e.

So n o t o nl y ha ve I gr an te d [ap po in te d co un se l’s] m ot io n to wit hd raw, I am de nyin g y ou r req ue st fo r a fu rth er pu bl ic de fen de r. You
do ha ve th e rig ht to hi re a la wy er at y ou r own ex pe ns e; bu t, at th is po in t,

at lea st at t he tri al co ur t l ev el , th at ’s th e o nl y op ti on lef

t o pe n t o you

.

App el le e’s App . 35 . Koen ig ’s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l was als o d en ie d.

A res ti tu ti on he ari ng was la te r he ld to de te rm in e t h e d am ag es Koe ni g’s

ne ig hb or s ha d su ffer ed as a res ul t of hi s h or se s ru nn in g a t l arg e. At t he co nc lu si on

of th e res ti tu ti on he ari ng , th e st at e tr ia l co ur t i nf or m ed Koe ni g th at on ce res ti tu ti on

was res ol ve d a fin al jud gm en t wou ld be en te red

, whi ch wou ld m ark th e be gi nn in g of

hi s th irt y -d ay pe rio d to fil e an ap pe al w i t h t h e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t. The

st at e tri al co ur t th en st at ed

, “ W he th er o r no t y ou wou ld be en ti tl ed to a la wy er on

a p p eal is an is su e th at y ou wou ld ha ve to ta ke up wit h th e cl erk of th e Su p r e me

Co ur t.” On Nov em

be r 13

, 20 09

, th e tri al co ur t en te red fin di ng s of fact

, co nc lu si on s

of la w, an d or de r fo r jud gm en t, whi ch fo un d th at Koe ni g owe d $5 ,40 0 in res ti tu ti on

. The or de r of jud gm en t am en de d Koe ni g’s earl ie r se nt en ce by ex te nd i n g hi s

un su pe rv is ed pr ob at io n to th ree y ears fro m th e en try of th e am en de d ju dg m en t, or

un ti l p ay m en t i n fu ll of t he res ti tu ti on ob li ga ti on , whi ch ev er o ccu rred fir st

.

Koe ni g fil ed a no ti ce of ap pe al w i t h t h e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t on

D e c e m be r 11

, 20 09

. Koe ni g al so fil ed a m ot io n wit h th e Nor th Dak ot a S u p r e me

Co ur t req ue st in g th e ap po in tm en t of ap pe ll at e co un se l. On Decem be r 29

, 20 09

, th e

Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t en te red an or de r st at in g, “ [I]nas m uc h as th is co ur t do es

no t ap po in t le ga l co un se l, th e m ot io n fo r co un se l is DENIED. ” Th e do ck et en try

acco m pa nyin g th is or de r in di cat ed th at req ue st s fo r co un se l are to be m ad e wit h th e

-3

-tri al co ur t. F o l l o w i n g th e rece ip t of th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s or de r, Koe ni g fil ed a 1

m ot io n wit h th e st at e tri al co ur t on Ja nu ary 14

, 20 10

, req ue st in g, am on g ot he r th in gs , th at th e co ur t “ ta ke Ju di ci al Not ic e of th e St at e Su pr em e Co ur ts [s ic ] Ord er, Den y in g

Defen da nt s [s ic ] Mo ti on fo r th e Su pr em e Co ur t to ap po in t l eg al co un se l t o a ss is t i n

ap pe al in g th is cri m in al co nv ic ti on

. W he rei n th e St at e Su pr em e Co ur t cl earl y st at ed

th at th ey do no t ap po in t ap pe ll at e co un se l.” Ap pe ll an t’s Ap p. 1 19 -2 0. Th e m ot io n

st at ed fu rth er , “De f

e n d an t fu rth er ad vi se s th is Co ur t th at hi s fin an ci al si tu at io n ha s

n o t im pr ov ed si nc e th e fil in g of hi s Mo ti on fo r Co un se l on Aug us t 10

, 20 09 .” I d

. The reco rd do es no t co nt ai n a ru li ng by th e st at e tri al co ur t reg ard in g th is m ot io n, bu t

it is un di sp ut ed th at ap pe ll at e co un se l w a s no t ap po in te d. The reaf te r, Koe ni g

pr oc eed ed to br ie f an d arg ue hi s di rect ap pe al pr o se . He in cl ud ed a mo n g t h e ot he r

sp eci fic at io ns of co ns ti tu ti on al erro r se t fort h in hi s bri ef his cl ai m th at he ha d bee n
de ni ed hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to ap po in te d co un se l on ap pe al

, ci ti ng Dou gl as v.
Cal ifo rn ia , 37 2 U.S. 3 53 (19 63 ).

On Apr il 19 , 2 01 0, th e da y be fo re Koe ni g’s di rect ap pe al was to be he ard by

th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t, Koe ni g fil ed in th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r

th e Dis tri ct of N o r th Dak ot a (d is tri ct co ur t) a pe ti ti on fo r a writ of ha be as co rp us

u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C. § 22 54 an d a m ot io n fo r an em erg en cy st ay of th e pe nd in g or a l

arg um en t on hi s di rect ap pe al

. Koe ni g’s pe ti ti on id en t i f i e d a s al le ge d erro rs in hi s

st at e co ur t co nv ic ti on th e sa m e el ev en erro rs th at Koe ni g ha d rai se d in hi s ap pe ll at e
br i e f be fo re th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t. As gr ou nd s fo r hi s req ue st fo r an

em erg en cy st ay , Koe ni g al le ge d th at he was en ti tl ed to th e as si st an ce of le ga l co un se l

on hi s di rect ap pe al as a m at te r of rig ht un de r st at ut e an d Su pr em e Co ur t prec ed en t.

He al le ge d fu rth er t ha t:

In res po ns e to ou r req ue st , Koen ig ’s cou ns el in th is pro ceed in g c on du ct ed 1

an in ve st ig at io n a nd rep or te d t ha t t he re i s n o re co rd th at th e Dece m be r 28 , 20 09

,

m ot io n was ev er re fil ed wit h t he st at e tr ia l co ur t.

-4

-The [s ta t e t r ia l] co ur t refu se s to ap po in t le ga l co un se l, ev en

th ou gh Pet it io ne r ha s be en fo un d in di ge nt

, Pet it io ne r th erea fte r m ov ed
th e St at e Su pr em e Co ur t, fo r th e ap p o i n t ment of ap pe ll at e co un se l,
whi ch t h ey de ni ed

, st at in g th ey do no t ap po in t ap pe ll at e co un se l.

Pet it io ne r ha s t hu s b een for ced to de fen d i n p ro se c ap aci ty.

Mo t. fo r Emergen cy St ay 1. Koe ni g req ue st ed an or de r st ay in g th e pr oc eed in gs
be fo re the Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t un ti l a de te rm in at io n reg ard in g hi s rig ht to

le ga l cou ns el fo r hi s di rect ap pe al was m ad e b y th e di st ric t cou rt. Id

. at 4. Bec au se

of th e la te na tu re o f th e fi li ng , t he di st ric t co ur t was un ab le to rul e u po n t he m ot io n

fo r an em erg en cy st ay un ti l aft er or al arg um en t on Koe ni g’s di rect ap pe al was he ard

. The di st ric t co ur t th us de ni ed th e m ot io n as m oo t. See D. Ct

. Ord er of May 14

, 20 10

,
at 1- 2. Mo reo ve r, th e di st ric t co u r t c o n c l ud ed th at be cau se th e Nor th Dak ot a

Su pr em e Co ur t ha d no t is su ed a de ci si on on Koe ni g’s di rect ap pe al

, th e cl ai m s in hi s

ha be as co rp us pe ti ti on ha d no t be en fu ll y ex ha us te d. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t

di sm is se d t he pe ti ti on wit ho ut pre jud ic e. Id

.

Unb ek no wns t to th e di st ric t co ur t, th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t ha d is su ed

a su m m ary de ni al of Koe ni g’s ap pe al on May 11

, 20 10

, in whi c h i t affi rm ed hi s

co nv ic ti on an d reject ed al l el ev en cl ai m ed erro rs

. See St at e v. Koe ni g, 78 9 N.W .2d

73 1 (N.D. 20 10 ) (ta bl e de ci si on ). Koe ni g fil ed a m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n wit h th e 2

di st ric t co ur t, as ki ng th at it reco ns id er it s co nc lu si on th at he ha d fai le d to ex ha us t hi s
ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n, st at in g: “ Hav in g no w

ex ha us te d hi s st at e co ur t rem ed ie s, th e Co ur t he reb y gr an ts Koe ni g’s m ot io n to al te r

an d am en d it s pr ev io us Ord er.” D. Ct

. Ord er of Ju ly 22

, 20 10

, at 1. The di st ric t co ur t

th en ad dr es se d th e m eri ts of th e pe ti ti on an d co nc lu de d th at no ne of Koe ni g’s cl ai m s
de m on st rat ed an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral la w or a cl ear

erro r in an y fact ua l fin di ng s. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d hi s pe ti ti on wit h pr ejud ic e

an d d en ie d a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y . Id. at 6-7

.

Koe ni g’s pe ti ti on fo r writ of cert io rari fro m th at de ci si on was de ni ed la te r th at 2

y ear. Ko en ig v. No rth Dako ta , 13 1 S . Ct. 6 64 (20 10 ).

-5

-Koe ni g ap pl ie d fo r a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y wit h th is co ur t. A pa ne l of th is

co ur t gr an te d Koe ni g in fo rm a pa u p e r i s s t a tu s on ap pe al an d fo un d th at reas on ab le
juri st s wou ld fin d d e b a t a b l e th e di st ric t co ur t’s reject io n of th e fo ll owi ng cl ai m s in

th e ab se nc e of th e rel ev an t st at e co ur t reco r ds : (1 ) th at Koe ni g was de ni ed

ap po in tm en t of ap pe ll at e co un se l; (2 ) th at co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to rai se

th e de fen se th at Koe ni g m ai nt ai ne d a di tc h as a l a w f u l fen ce an d fo r fai li ng to

ch al le ng e th e te st im on y th at un de rm in ed th at de fen se ; (3 ) th at th e st at ut e de fin in g a

la wfu l fen ce was un co ns ti tu ti on al ly va gu e as ap pl ie d to Koe ni g du e to th e co nf li ct in g

t e s t i m on y co nc ern in g th e st an da rd s fo r a la wfu l fen ce, in cl ud in g whe n a di tc h

am ou nt ed to a la wfu l fen ce; an d ( 4 ) th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to sh ow th at

Koe ni g act ed wil lfu ll y an d th at he di d no t m ai nt ai n a la wfu l fen ce. The pa ne l de ni ed

a cert if i cat e of ap pe al ab il it y on th e rem ai ni ng cl ai m s. Koe ni g’s pe ti ti on was

rem an de d to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r co ns id erat io n of th os e fo ur cl ai m s on ce th e st at e of

Nor th Dak ot a (St at e) ha d res po nd ed to th e pe ti ti on an d pr od uc ed th e rel ev an t po rti on s

of th e st at e rec or d.

The St at e’s res po ns e in cl ud ed a m ot io n to di sm is s th e pe ti ti on

. Afte r th e

m ot io n was fu ll y br ie fed

, th e di st ric t co ur t co nd uc te d a th or ou gh rev ie w of th e st at e

co ur t reco rd an d gr an te d t h e S ta te ’s m ot io n to di sm is s th e pe ti ti on , ho ld in g th at

Koe ni g was no t en ti tl ed to th e rel ie f he so ug ht un de r § 2 2 5 4

. S e e D. Ct

. Ord er of
Apr il 25

, 20 12

, at 21

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Koe ni g a cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y

on th e fo ur earl ie r-re m an de d c la im s, an d t hi s ap pe al fol lo wed

.

II. Dis cu ss io n

“ In rev ie win g a di st ric t cou rt’s d en ia l o f ha be as rel ie f, we rev ie w it s fin di ng s

of fact fo r cl ear erro r an d it s co nc lu si on s of l a w d e n o v o

. ” Fl owe rs v. Nor ris

, 58 5

F.3 d 41 3, 41 6 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 9 ). Lik e th e di st ric t co ur t, we rev ie w th e un de rlyin g
de ci si on of th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 54

, as am en de d by

-6

-th e Ant it erro ris m an d Effect iv e Deat h Pen al ty Act of 19 96 (AEDP A). Id

. Und er

AEDPA, an ap pl ic at io n fo r a writ of h a b e a s c or pu s m ay on ly be gr an te d if th e
ad jud ic at io n o f t h e u nd erl y in g st at e co ur t act io n res ul te d in a de ci si on “ th at was

co nt rary t o, or in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of , c l earl y es ta bl is he d Fed eral

la w, as de te rm in ed by th e Su pr em e Co ur t of th e Uni te d St at es ” or on e “ th at was ba se d

on an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n of th e fact s in li gh t of th e ev id en ce pr es en te d in th e

St at e co ur t p ro ceed in g.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4( d) (1 ), (2 ).

Koe ni g fir st co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by de nyin g hi m ha be as rel ie f

on hi s cl ai m th at he was de ni ed hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to ap pe ll at e co un se l on

hi s di rect ap pe al

. The Si xt h Am en dm en t st at es th at “ [i]n al l cri m in al pr os ecu ti on s,

th e accu se d sh al l en

joy th e rig h t

. . . to ha ve th e Ass is ta nc e of Co un se l fo r hi s
d e f e n c e

. ” U .S. Co ns t. am en d. VI. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s in te rp ret ed th is rig ht to

co un se l as req ui rin g th at in di ge nt de fen da nt s be pr ov id ed co un se l un le ss th e rig ht ha s
be en vo lu nt ari ly an d in te ll ig en tl y waiv ed

. See Jo hn so n v. Zerb st

, 30 4 U.S. 45 8, 46 4
(1 93 8) ; Uni te d St at es ex rel

. Mi ne r v. Eric ks on , 42 8 F.2 d 62 3, 62 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 70 )
(“ The rig ht to co un se l m ay be waiv ed

, of co ur se , if th e waiv er is m ad e vo lu nt ari ly an d

in te ll ig en tl y

by a com pe te nt m in d.” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). In Gi de on

v. W ai nwr ig ht

, 37 2 U.S. 33 5 (19 63 ), th e Co ur t ext en de d to st at e co ur t pro se cu ti on s

th e rig ht to st at e-ap po in te d co un se l es ta bl is he d in Zerb st

. And in Dou gl as , 37 2 U.S.

a t 35 7- 58

, th e Co ur t he ld th at th e rig ht to co un se l in cl ud es th e rig ht to ap pe ll at e

co un se l fo r an ap pe al of a co nv ic ti on tak en as a m at te r of rig ht

.

U n d e r N or th Dak ot a la w, Koe ni g was en ti tl ed to ap pe al hi s m is de m ean o r

co nv ic ti on as a m at te r of rig ht

. See N.D. Cen t. Cod e § 29 -2 8- 03

. Thu s, in it s ord er
de nyin g ha be as rel ie f on th is cl ai m , th e di st ric t co ur t reco gn iz ed th at “ [u ]nle ss th ere

was a va li d waiv e r o f t h e rig ht to co un se l, th is de ni al of ap pe ll at e co un se l wou ld

vi ol at e Koe ni g’s st at e an d fed eral co ns ti tu ti on a l r i g ht s.” D. Ct

. Ord er of Apr

. 25

, 20 12

, at 7. Afte r reco un ti ng th e li ta ny of di ffi cu lt ie s th at Koe ni g ha d pr es en te d to hi s

tri al co un se l an d to th e st at e co ur t syste m th at ha d le d to th e st at e tri al co ur t’s fin di ng

of a vo lu nt ary waiv er o f co un se l, t he di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d:

-7

-[T]his Co ur t co nc ur s th at th e st a t e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s

co m pe ll ed th e le ga l co nc lu si on th at Koe ni g’s co nduc t co nstit ut ed a va li d
waiv er of hi s rig ht to ap pe ll at e co un se l. Koe ni g’s ab us e of th e jud ic ia l

pr oc es s an d hi s refu sa l to co op erat e wit h ei th er of hi s co ur t- ap po in te d

at to rn ey s were bo th m an ife st at io ns of hi s de si re to try hi s cas e s t r ic tl y

on hi s own te rm s. In li gh t of th is ro gu e ap pr oa ch to de fen di ng hi s cas e, Koe ni g’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to co un se l was no t in fri ng ed be cau se th e fu rth er ap po in tm en t of ap pe ll at e co un se l wou ld ha ve be en fru it le ss an d

a g a i n s t Koe ni g’s wis he s as ev id en ced by hi s co nd uc t. The de ni a l o f

ap pe ll at e co un se l d id no t i nf rin ge up on Koen ig ’s con st it ut io na l ri gh ts

.

Koe ni g do es no t di sp ut e th at th e st at e tri al co ur t de te rm in ed th at he ha d th ro ug h

hi s co nd uc t waiv ed hi s rig ht to ap po in te d co un se l at th e t r ia l co ur t le ve l. He

co nt en ds

, ho wev er, th at th e reco rd refl ect s th at th e st at e tri al co ur t ’s w a i v e r
de te rm in at io n was li m it ed to th e is su e of th e rig ht to tri al co un se l on ly an d th at no
de t e r mi n a ti on reg ard in g hi s rig ht to ap pe ll at e co un se l was ev er m ad e. It is well

se tt l e d “ th at co ur ts in du lg e ev ery reas on ab le pr es um pt io n ag ai ns t waiv er of

fu nd am en ta l co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s an d th at we do no t pr es um e acq ui es cen ce in th e lo ss

of fu nd am en ta l rig ht s.” Zerb st

, 3 04 U.S. at 46 4 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d

fo ot no te om it te d)

. “ W hi le an accu se d m ay waiv e th e rig ht to co un se l, whe th er th ere
is a pr op er waiv er sh ou ld be cl earl y de te rm in ed by th e tri al co ur t, an d it wou ld be

fit ti ng an d ap pr op ria te fo r th at de te rm in at io n to ap pe ar up on th e reco rd .” Id

. at 46 5.

As reco un te d earl i er, th e st at e tri al co ur t de te rm in ed th at Koe ni g ha d m ad e a

kn owi ng an d in te ll ig en t waiv er of hi s rig ht to ap po in te d tri al co un se l. The st at e tri al

c o u r t o u t l in ed in de ta il th e co nd uc t th at it fo un d to co ns ti tu te “ th e fu nc ti on a l

eq ui va le nt of a vo lu nt ary waiv er of [Ko en ig ’s] r ig ht to co un se l[.]” See App el le e’s
App

. 28 -3 5 ( q u o t i n g Mo t. fo r New Co un se l Hr’g 16 :1 0- 11

, Sep t. 23

, 20 09 ). Bu t

im m ed ia te ly foll owi ng th is fin di ng , th e st at e tri al co ur t l im it ed it s d et erm in at io n b y

st at in g, “ You do ha ve th e rig ht to hi re a la wy er at yo u r o w n e x p en se ; bu t, at th is

-8

-po in t, at le as t at th e tri al co ur t l e v e l

, th at ’s t he on ly o pt io n le ft op en to y ou .” Id . a t

35

. Had th e st at e tri al co ur t de te rm in ed th at Koe ni g ha d waiv ed no t on ly hi s rig ht to

ap po in te d tri a l c o u n s el bu t al so hi s rig ht to ap po in te d ap pe ll at e co un se l, th e

qu al ifyin g st at em en t “ at le as t at th e tri al co ur t le ve l” wou ld ha ve be en su pe rfl uo us

.

Mo reo v er, th e he ari ng du rin g whi ch th e st at e tri al co ur t m ad e it s waiv er
de te rm in at i o n w a s o ne ad dr es si ng Koe ni g’s m ot io n fo r th e ap po in tm en t of ne w

co un se l to as si st hi m wit h fil in g a tri al -le ve l mo t i o n

. See App el le e’s App

. 17 -1 8
(req ue st in g th e ap po in tm en t o f co un se l to as si st “ in th e am en di ng an d pre se nt at io n,

of th is [m ot io n fo r ne w tri al ]”). Thu s, th e st at e tri al co ur t’s fin di ng of waiv er rel at ed

so le ly to Koe ni g’s req ue st fo r a p p o i n te d co un se l to ai d in tri al co ur t pr oc eed in gs ,
t h e re ha vi ng be en no req ue st be fo re it at th at ti m e fo r th e ap po in tm en t of ap pe ll at e

co un se l.

Thi s read in g of th e reco rd fi n d s f ur th er su pp or t in th e st at e tri al co ur t’s

su bs eq ue nt di sc us si on of Koe ni g’s rig ht to ap pe al hi s co nv ic ti on , du rin g whi ch it

st at ed :

If y ou in te nd to ap pe al an y as pe c t o f t h i s c as e to th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t, y ou m

us t fil e a ti m el y no ti ce wit h th e cl erk

. And ag ai n, th e ti m e li m it is th irt y da y s fo ll owi ng en try of jud gm en t. W he th er or no t

y ou wou ld be en ti tl ed to a la wy er o n a pp eal is an is su e th at y ou wou ld
ha ve to tak e u p wi th th e cl erk of t he Su pr em e Co ur t.

App el la n t’s Pro Se App

. 28 (q uo ti ng Res ti tu ti on Hr’g 66 :5 -1 1, Oct. 21

, 20 09 ).
Aga in

, ha d th e st at e tri al co ur t’s waiv er de te rm in at io n be en on e in te nd ed to ad dr es s

a req ue st fo r bo th tri al co un se l and ap pe ll at e co un se l, the st at e tri al co ur t wou ld no t

ha ve erro ne ou sl y di rect ed Koe ni g to rai se hi s req ue st fo r th e ap po in tm en t of ap pe ll at e

co un se l wit h th e cl erk of th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t. Thu s, th e st at e tri al co ur t

reco rd wil l no t ad m it of a fin di ng th at Koe ni g ha d kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly waiv ed

hi s ri gh t t o t he ap po in tm en t o f ap pe ll at e co un se l.

-9

-Bec au se th e st at e t r i a l co ur t’s waiv er de te rm in at io n was li m it ed to Koe ni g’s

rig ht to tri al co un s e l

, Koe ni g is en ti tl ed to ha be as rel ie f un le ss th e reco rd co nt ai ns

so m e ot he r m an ife st at io n th at he kn owi ng ly an d in te l li ge nt ly waiv ed hi s rig ht to

ap pe ll at e co un se l. The St at e co nt en ds th at Koe ni g’s fai lu re to req ue st th e

ap po in tm en t of ap pe ll at e co un se l in th e st at e tri al co ur t aft e r a s i mi l a r m ot io n was
de ni ed by th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t co ns ti tu te s su ch a waiv er. W e co nc lu de

, ho wev er, t ha t Ko en ig ’s Jan ua ry 14 , 20 10 , m ot io n t o th e st at e tr ia l co ur t co ns ti tu te d

a ren ewal of hi s earl ie r req ue st fo r ap pe ll at e co un se l and can no t be read as a waiv er

of su ch co un se l. As th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s m ad e cl ear, “ whe re th e as si s t a n c e of

co un se l is a co ns ti tu ti on al req ui si te

, th e rig ht to be fu rn is he d co un se l do es no t de pe nd

on a req ue st .” Carn le y v. Co ch ran , 3 69 U.S. 50 6, 5 13 (19 62 ). Lik ewis e, waiv er o f

th e rig ht to ap pe ll at e co un se l can no t be in ferr ed si m pl y fro m th e de fen da nt ’s fai lu re

to req ue st ap pe ll at e co un se l. Swen so n v. Bo s l er, 38 6 U.S. 25 8, 26 0 (1 96 7) (p er

cu ria m ):

W he n a de fen da nt who se in di ge nc y an d de si re to a p p e a l are m an ife st do es no t ha ve th e se rv ic es of hi s tri al co un se l on ap pe al

, it si m pl y can no t be in ferr ed fro m de fen da nt ’s fai lu re sp eci fic al ly to req ue st ap po in tm en t of ap pe ll at e co un se l th at he ha s kn owi ng ly an d in te ll ig en tl y waiv ed hi s rig ht to th e ap po in tm en t o f ap pe ll at e co un se l.

Id

.

In Harri s v. Est el le

, 48 7 F.2 d 56 (5 th Ci r. 19 73 ) (p er cu ria m ), th e Fi fth Ci rcu it

rel ie d up on Swen so n to gr an t ha be as rel ie f to a si m il ar pe ti ti on er, al be it on e who ha d

be en co nv ic te d of m

ur de r rat he r th an of a m i n or m is de m ean or

. The Fi fth Ci rcu it

co nc lu de d t ha t “ th e st at e, th ro ug h i ts off ic ia ls

, kn ew of

Harri s’s i nd ig en cy

an d t hu s

ha d a du ty to as cert ai n whe th er Harri s ha d co un se l fo r hi s ap pe al ; if no t, to ad vi se hi m

of hi s rig ht th eret o; an d to ap po in t c o u ns el fo r hi m if he so de si red .” Id

. at 58

. Rel y in g on Swen so n, th e co ur t he ld th at be cau se th e reco rd “ fu ll y an d un eq ui vo cal ly

sh owe d th at Harri s’s in di ge nc e an d hi s de si re to ap pe al were m ad e kn own to a st at e

-1 0-of

fic ia l, na m el y , th e tri al jud ge , . . . he [was ] en ti tl ed to an ou t of ti m e a p p e a l wit h

co un se l.” Id

.

The reco rd is cl ear th at th e st at e tri al co ur t was aware of Koe ni g’s in di ge nc y

as well as of hi s de si re to ap pe al

. It s f a i l u re to res po nd in an y m an ne r to Koe ni g’s

Ja nu ary 14

, 20 10

, m ot io n fo recl os es an y cl ai m th at it at th at ti m e fo un d th at Koe ni g

ha d waiv ed h i s r i g h t t o ap pe ll at e co un se l. Mo reo ve r, th ere is no th in g in th e Nor th

Dak ot a Su pr em e Cour

t’ s unpu bli shed op in io n in di cat in g th at it fo un d th at Koe ni g ha d

kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ar i l y wai ve d hi s rig ht to ap pe ll at e co un se l. In th e ab se nc e of

su ch reco rd ev id en ce, we co nc lu de th at th e Nor th Dak ot a st at e co ur ts act ed co nt rary

to th e di ct at es of fir m ly es ta bl i s h ed Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t by fai li ng to pr ov id e

Koe ni g wi th ap pe ll at e co un se l.

Acco rd in gl y , we ho ld th a t K oe ni g is en ti tl ed to rel ie f on hi s ha be as pe ti ti on ,

an d th us w e r e man d th e cas e to th e di st ric t co ur t wit h di rect io ns th at it be he ld in

ab ey an ce fo r no t lo ng er tha n 12 0 d ay s fr om th e d at e o f is su an ce o f ou r m an da te . If

wit hi n th at ti m e th e St at e gr an ts Koe ni g le av e to ta ke an ou t-o f-t im e ap pe al wit h th e

as s i s t a n c e o f co un se l, th e di st ric t co ur t sh al l di sm is s Koe ni g’s pe ti ti on

. If su ch an

ap pe al is no t gr an te d wit hi n th at pe rio d, th e di st ric t co ur t sh al l en te r jud gm en t

va cat in g Koe ni g’s co nv ic ti on

. In li gh t of ou r ho ld in g, we ne ed no t ru le on th e

rem ai ni ng cla im s ra is ed in Koen ig ’s pet it io n. Se e Harri s, 4 87 F.2d at 5 7.

III. Co nc lu si on

W e rev ers e t h e ju d g m en t di sm is si ng th e pe ti ti on an d rem an d th e cas e to th e
di st ric t co ur t fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

In m y vi ew, t h e d e c i si on of th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t reject in g

La Vern e Koe ni g’s cl ai m th at he was de ni ed a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to co un se l on di rect

-1 1-ap pe al was no t “ co nt rary to

, or

. . . an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d

Fed eral la w, a s de te rm i n e d b y th e Su pr em e Co ur t of th e Uni te d St at es .” 28 U.S.C.
§ 22 54 (d )(1 ). Koe ni g’s ot he r cl ai m s are al so wit ho ut m eri t. I wou ld th eref or e affi rm

th e o rd er o f th e d is tri ct co ur t d en y in g h ab eas co rp us rel ie f.

As th e co ur t reco un ts

, du rin g tri al p ro ceed in gs in Nor th Dak ot a st at e co ur t,

Koe ni g “ en ga ge d in wha t can on ly be de sc rib ed as se ve ral la st -m in ut e di la to ry ta ct ic s

th at de la y ed an d co m

pl ic at ed th is m at te r.” Ant e , at 2. The st at e tri al co ur t fo un d th at

“ [f]rom th e ou ts et

, th e de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t ha s sh own a co ns is te nt pa tt ern whi ch can

on ly be ch arac te riz ed as an in te nt io na l e f f o r t t o ob st ru ct th e le ga l pr oc es s.”
App el la nt ’s App

. 11 7

. K oe ni g “ rep eat ed ly de m an de d an d th en reject ed co ur tap po in te d co un se l, whi ch is si m pl y on e sp eci fic m ean s th at he ha s ut il iz ed as a fo rm

of ob st ru ct in g th e le ga l pr oc es s.” Id

. A f te r on e su ch in ci de nt , Ko en ig was warn ed
by a tri al jud ge th at “ [s ]om et im es co nd uc t do es co n s t i t ut e a waiv er, an d I’m ve ry
cl os e to fin di ng th at y ou r co nd uc t ha s be en m an ip ul a t i v e an d it is a waiv er of y ou r rig ht to an at to rn ey .” Id

. at 11 5. Des pi te Koe ni g’s ta ct ic s, th e tri al co ur t gr an te d hi m

an ot he r co ur t-a pp oi nt ed co un se l fo r tri al

, bu t du rin g po st -tr ia l pr oc eed in gs , th e co ur t

reac he d it s li m it

. W he n co ns id eri ng Koe ni g’s m ot io n fo r ne w tri al an d hi s m ot io n to

di sm is s hi s tri al co un se l, th e st at e tri al co ur t ru le d th at Koe ni g— by hi s “ m an ip ul at iv e

c on du ct ”—f

or fei te d, an d kn owi ng ly an d in te ll ig en tl y waiv ed

, hi s rig ht to rece iv e

fu rth er as si st an ce fr om

a pu bl ic de fen de r in th e tr ia l co ur t. Id . at 1 18

.

On di rect ap pe al

, Koe ni g m ov ed f o r a pp oi nt m en t of co un se l in th e st at e

su pr em e co ur t, bu t th at co ur t res po nd ed th at it “ do es no t ap po in t le ga l co un se l,” an d

de ni ed th e m ot io n. Koe ni g th en m ov ed th e st at e tri al co ur t to ta ke jud ic ia l no ti ce of

th e su pr em e co ur t’s ru li ng on ap po in tm en t of co un se l. (Thi s was no t real ly “ a

ren ewal of hi s earl ie r req ue st fo r ap pe ll at e co un se l,” an te

, at 10

, be cau se Koe ni g di d

no t fo rm al ly m ov e fo r ap po in tm en t of ap pe ll at e co un se l in th e st at e tri al co ur t, ei th er
be fo re or aft er th e st at e su pr em e co ur t’s or de r.) Th e t r i a l co ur t to ok no act io n to

ap po in t ap pe ll at e co un se l fo r Koe ni g.

-1 2-In hi s di rect ap pe al

, Koe ni g th en arg ue d th at he was de ni ed hi s con st it ut io na l

rig ht to co un se l on ap pe al

, bu t th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e C o ur t affi rm ed hi s

co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce in a br ie f pe r cu ri am op in io n. St at e v. Ko en ig

, 78 9 N.W .2d

73 1, 20 10 W L 18 75 69 4 (N

. D

. 2 0 10 ) (p er cu ria m ) (u np ub li sh ed ta bl e de ci si on ).

Th ere is no in di cat io n th at th e st at e co ur t in ad ve rte nt ly ov erl oo ke d K o e n i g ’s

co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m : to th e co n t r a r y, th e co ur t’s op in io n ex pr es sl y ack no wled ge d

Koe ni g’s arg um en t th at he was “ im pr op erl y de ni ed le ga l co un se l

. . . on di r ect

ap pe al .” Id

. at *1

. Koe ni g’s cl ai m al le gi ng de ni al of a co ns ti tu ti on al rig h t to

ap pe ll at e co un se l was th us ad jud ic at ed on th e m eri ts by th e st at e co ur ts

. Se e Jo hn so n

v. W il li ams , 13 3 S. Ct

. 10 88

, 10 94 -9 6 (2 01 3) ; Har ri ng to n v. Rich te r , 13 1 S. Ct

. 77 0,

78 4- 85 (20 11 ).

Und er § 22 54 (d ), whe re a st at e co ur t’s reject io n of a c l a im is un ex pl ai ne d, a
fed eral ha be a s co ur t m

us t de te rm in e “ wha t arg um en ts or th eo rie s

. . . co ul d ha ve

su pp or te d

. . . th e st at e co ur t’s de ci si on .” Rich te r , 13 1 S. Ct

. at 78 6; se e W il li ams v. Rop er , 69 5 F .3d 82 5, 83 4 (8t h Cir. 20 12 ), cer t. den ie d

, 13 4 S . Ct. 8 5 (2 01 3) . Here,

t h e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d th at Koe ni g, by hi s

in te nt io na l effo rts to ob st ru ct th e le ga l p r o c es s, fo rfei te d or waiv ed hi s rig ht to th e

fu rth er as si st an ce o f co ur t-a pp oi nt ed co un se l, bo th du rin g po st -tr ia l pr oc eed in gs in

th e tri al co ur t an d on ap pe al

. The qu es ti on un de r § 22 54 (d ) is whe th er th at

co nc lu si on is co nt rary to

, or an u n r e as on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d

fed eral la w. In li gh t of Rich te r an d Premo v. Moo re , 13 1 S. Ct

. 7 3 3 (2 01 1)

, it is

in co rrec t fo r th is co ur t t o g r a n t ha be as rel ie f on th e gr ou nd th at th e st at e co ur ts di d

n o t a r t i c ul at e a rat io na le fo r reject in g Koe ni g’s cl ai m

. Cf

. an te

, at 11 (“ [T]here i s

no th in g in th e Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t’s un pu bl is he d op in io n in di cat in g th at it

fo un d th at Koe ni g ha d kn owi ng ly an d vo lu n t a r i l y w a iv ed hi s rig ht to ap pe ll at e

co un se l.”)

.

A fed eral co ur t m a y gr an t rel ie f on th e gr ou nd th at th e Nor th Dak ot a co ur t’s

de ci si on was “ co nt rary to

. . . cl earl y es ta bl is he d Fed eral la w” on ly if “ th e st at e co ur t

arri ve s at a co nc lu si on op po si te to th at reac he d by [th e Su pr em e] Co ur t on a qu es ti on

-1 3-of la w or if th e st at e co ur t de ci de s a cas e di ffer en tl y th an [th e Su pr em e] Co ur t ha s on

a se t of m at eri al ly in di st in gu is ha bl e fact s.” W il li ams v. Ta

yl or , 52 9 U.S. 36 2, 41 2- 13
(2 00 0)

. The Nor th Dak ot a co ur ts d i d n o t d is pu te th at an in di ge nt ap pe ll an t ha s a

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to co un se l on di rect ap pe al in li gh t of Dou gl as v. Ca li fo rn ia

, 37 2

U.S. 35 3 (1 96 3)

. Thi s cas e is ab ou t whe th er Koe ni g fo rfei te d or waiv ed hi s rig ht to

ap pe ll at e co un se l on a pa rti cu la r se t of fact s. Neit he r Koe ni g no r th e co ur t id en ti fie s

an y de ci si on of th e Su pr em e Co ur t co nc ern in g a se t of m at eri al ly i nd is ti ng ui sh ab le

fact s, so th e st at e co ur t’s de ci si on is no t “ co nt rary to ” cl earl y es ta bl is he d fed eral la w,

as de te rm in ed by the Su pr em e Co ur t.

To pr ev ai l un de r th e “ un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n” pr on g o f § 2 25 4( d)

, a

pe ti ti on er m

us t sh ow no t on ly t ha t th e st at e c o u r t ’s d e c is io n was in co rrec t, bu t th at

i t was un reas on ab le

. W

il li ams , 52 9 U.S. at 41 0. “ [S]o lo ng as fai rm in de d juri st s

co ul d di sa gr ee on th e co rrec tn es s of th e st at e co ur t’s de ci si on ,” th e st at ut e pr ecl ud es
fed eral ha be as rel ie f. Rich te r , 13 1 S. Ct

. at 78 6 (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. Koe ni g

m us t sh ow th at “ th ere was no reas on ab le ba si s fo r th e st at e co ur t to de ny rel ie f.” Id

.
at 78 4. The m or e ge ne ral th e l e g a l r u le at is su e, “ th e m or e le eway co ur ts ha ve in

reac hi ng ou tc om es in cas e-b y -c a se de te rm in at io ns .” Y ar bo ro ug h v. Alva ra do

, 54 1

U.S. 65 2, 6 64 (20 04 ).

The S u p r e me Co ur t ha s no t ad dr es se d whe n a cri m in al de fen da nt ’s

m an ip ul at iv e an d ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t du rin g tri al an d po st -tr ia l pr oc eed in gs am ou nt s

to a fo rfei tu re or waiv er of th e rig ht to co un se l. Bu t th e Co ur t ha s ru le d in th e co nt ex t

of th e rig ht to be pr es en t fo r tri al th at a de fen da nt can lo se im po rta nt co ns ti tu ti on al
rig ht s if, aft er he ha s b een warn ed by the co ur t ab ou t th e po te nt ia l co ns eq ue nc es of

di sr up ti ve be ha vi or , he ne ve rth el es s pe rs i s t s

. Ill in oi s v. All en , 39 7 U.S. 33 7, 34 3
(1 97 0)

. St at e co ur ts an d in feri or fed eral co ur ts ha ve reco gn iz ed th at a de fen da nt who

ha s be e n w a r ne d m ay kn owi ng ly, vo lu nt ari ly, an d in te ll ig en tl y waiv e th e rig ht to

co un se l by co nt in ui ng ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Gol db er g , 67 F.3 d

10 92

, 11 00 -0 1 (3 d Ci r. 19 95 ) ; St at e v. Ca rr ut he rs , 35 S.W .3d 51 6, 54 8- 50 (Ten n.

20 00 ), an d th at ex tre m e co nd uc t m ay res ul t in a fo rfei tu re of th e rig ht to co un se l ev en

-1 4-wit ho ut ad va nc e warn in g. E.g.

, Uni te d St at es v. McLeo d

, 53 F.3 d 32 2, 32 5- 26 (1 1t h

Ci r. 19 95 ); St at e v

. Jo ne s , 77 2 N.W .2d 49 6, 50 4- 06 (Mi nn

. 20 09 ); Co mmon wea lt h

v. Mea ns , 90 7 N.E.2d 64 6, 65 8 (Ma ss

. 20 09 ); Bri cker t v. St at e , 67 3 N.E.2d 49 3, 49 6
( I n d . Ap p. 19 96 ). Acco rd in g to th es e au th or it ie s, a de fen da nt m ay fo rfei t or wa i v e

th e rig ht to co u n s e l in th e tri al co ur t, e.g

. , Jo ne s , 77 2 N.W .2d at 50 6, or on ap pe al

, Uni te d S ta te s v. Th omp so n , 33 5 F .3d 78 2, 7 85 (8t h Cir. 20 03 ). “ [T]he fo rfei tu re o f

co un se l at [a no nt ria l ph as e of pr oc eed in gs ] do es no t de al as se rio u s a b l o w t o a
de fen da nt as wou ld th e fo rfei tu re of co un se l at th e tr ia l i ts el f.” Mea ns , 90 7 N.E.2d

at 65 9 (a lt erat io ns in ori gi na l) ( in te rn al qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

The re is a pa uc it y of au th or it y co nc ern in g whe th er a de f e n d an t’s ob st ru ct iv e

co nd uc t in th e tri al co ur t, du rin g bo th tri al an d po st -tr ia l pr oc eed in gs , can res ul t in a

fo rfei tu re or waiv er of th e rig ht to co un se l on ap pe al

. The re is no ob vi ou s reas on why

it can no t d o s o i n a n a pp ro pr ia te cas e. The Su pr em e Co ur t h as ne ve r ad dr es se d t he

m at te r. The st at e co ur t s t h u s h a ve a go od de al of le eway in reac hi ng reas on ab le

co nc lu si on s co nc ern in g th e de gr ee of ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t th at co ul d res ul t in th e lo ss

o f t h e rig ht to ap pe ll at e co un se l an d th e type of warn in gs , if an y , th at m ig h t b e

req ui r e d b efo re a co ur t refu se s to ap po in t ne w co un se l on ap pe al

. Cf

. Her n v.

Mar sh al l

, No. 2: 06 -2 79 0

, 20 09 W L 29 71 55 6, at *4 n.3 (E.D. Cal

. 20 09 ) (“ The

req ui rem en t th at th ere be a kn owi ng an d in te ll ig en t waiv er of th e rig ht to co un se l an d

a d v i s e men t ab ou t th e da ng ers of se lf- rep res en ta ti on , se e Far et ta v. Ca li fo rn ia , 4 2 2

U.S. 80 6 (1 97 5)

, ari se s fro m th e Si xt h A men dm en t whi ch

, un de r th e ho ld in g of

Mar ti ne z [ v. Co ur t of

App ea l of Ca li

fo rn ia

, Fou rt h App el la te Dis tr ic t

, 52 8 U.S. 15 2
(2 00 0) ], do es no t ap pl y

to ap pe ll at e p ro ceed in gs .”).

Koe ni g was warn ed by th e st at e tri a l c o u r t th at m an ip ul at iv e co nd uc t co ul d

res ul t i n th e waiv er of hi s rig ht to an at to rn ey

. The Nor th Dak ot a Su pr em e Co ur t

reas on ab ly co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d th at Koe ni g— by co nt in ui ng hi s in te nt io na l effo rts

to ob st ru ct th e l e g a l pr oc es s, in cl ud in g by hi s rep eat ed ly de m an di ng an d th en

re j ec ti ng co ur t-a pp oi nt ed co un se l— fo rfei te d or know ing ly an d vol unt ar ily w ai ve d his
rig ht to ha ve th e as si st an ce o f ne w cou rt- ap po in te d c ou ns el on di rect ap pe al

.

-1 5-Und er th e st an da rd s of 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ), Koe ni g is no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f on

hi s cl ai m th at he was de ni ed th e co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to ap pe ll at e co un se l.

Su bs ta nt ia ll y fo r th e reas on s gi ve n by th e di st ric t co ur t

, K o e n i g’s ot he r cl ai m s fo r
rel ie f la ck m eri t. I wo ul d a ffi rm th e o rd er o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-1 6-