## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 2302 J AM ES A. S MITH, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. G REG O RY G RA MS, W ar den, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 06 C375

—Jo hn C. Sh abaz, Judg e.
A RGUED D ECE MBE R 5, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AY 15, 2009

Befo re R IPPLE, K ANN E , an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . A p p ella n t Ja m es Sm ith is curr entl y s er vi ng a fi ftee n-y earse ntence f ora 19 94 ar m ed r o bb er y c onv i ct i o n in the c i r cui t co ur t o fM i l wauk ee Co unty, W i sc o ns i n. I n 2 00 7, S m i thpe ti ti o ned the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t forthe W est er n Dis tr i ct o f W i sco nsi n f ora w rit o fhabea s co rpus pursuant to 28 U .S .C
. § 2 25 4. Inh is p et itio n, Sm ith cla im ed , inte r alia , that he was denie d his S i xth A m endm ent r i ght t o cou ns el du ring h is s t a te j ury trial. Th e d istri ct cou rt2 N o. 07

- 2302 d i s mi s s e d th e p e t i t i o n . We fi nd m e r i ti n S mi th ’ s c l a i ms an d r emand to th e di st r i ct co ur t wi th o r der s to issue the wri t.

I. B ACK GR OUN D Sm i th was ar re ste d i n ea rl y 1 994 on a char ge ofar m ed r o bb er y. Fol l o wi nghi s ar r es t, W i sc o ns i n’ s Offi ce o fthe St at e P u b lic D efe n d er ap p oin te d Sm ith ’s firs t c ou n se l, Assi st an t Pub l i c Defen derS te ve n S ar g ent. At a s ta tu s he aring he ld M arch 2 3 , 1 9 9 4, Sargen t inform ed the cou rt that Sm ith desi re d a new atto rney . S m i th, wh o w as prese nt atthe hear i ng, to l d t h e courtthathe was not interest ed i n an oth er l aw yer from the P ub li c D efend er’s offi ce. S m i th s aid that he wanted the Publ i c Defender to appoin t T h om as M ar ol a, an a tto rneyi n pri vate prac ti ce, to hand l e hi s c as e. M ar ol a had defended Sm i th ata re cent tr i ali n w hi ch a j ury acqui tte d Sm i th o fbo th sexualas saul t a nd ar m ed robber y. I fthe Publ i c Defen der ’ s o ffi ce woul d no t appo i nt M arola, Sm ith insisted that he w ou ld rep r e s en t him self. T he c o ur t co nduc te d a c ur so r y e xa m i na ti o n o fS m i th, i nqui r i ngabo uthis e duca ti o n a nd e xpe r i en ce wi ththe j ud i ci alsy ste m . The co urt then co ncl ud ed the hear i ng, l eaving bo th r epres entat i on o pti ons open: “[ W ] e ca n w or k i t o ut with the Publ i c D efend er ’ s o ffi ce, however they w ant t o do i t. You can re prese nt yo urse l f, o r they’l l appointa lawyer f oryo u. ” At the M ar ch 23 hear i ng, Sm ith als o re ite ra te d a p re vio u s re q u es t for a s p ee d y t ria l. A we e kl a t e r, o n M a r c h 3 1 , 19 9 4 , the c o ur th e l d a sta tus he ar i ng i n Sm i th’ s absence atwh i ch Thom asN o. 07

- 2302 3 W i l m outh, S m i th’ s s eco nd a pp oi nted counsel, ente re d hi s appearance . The cour t set the tr i al date f or M ay 25, 1994, wh i ch i t l ate r changed to M ay 31. The next s tatus hear i ng o ccurr ed on M ay 4 , 19 94, with both Sm i th and W ilm outh pre sent. A t that hea ring, W ilm ou th m ov ed to w ith d ra w as Sm ith ’s a tt or n e y , a senti m ent e choed byS m i th, w h o al so re quested new re prese ntati on. W i l m ou th sai d that he had spoke n w i th the W i sco nsi n Publi c D efe nd er ’ s o ffi ce a nd “they ind i ca te d a t th i s po i nttha t th eyha ve a min d [ to a ppo i nt a th i r d l awy er ]
. ” The c o ur t g r an te d the m otion. The c o ur tthe n a l l o we d S mi th to be he a r d pro se o n a m oti on r el at ed to hi s bo nd , but i t co nti nued to i nd i cate i ts expe c ta tion that Sm i th would be re prese nted by co uns ela t t r i al : “I ’ l l gr an t the m o ti o n Mr. W i l m o uth o n the condi ti on . . . thata new at torney s houl d be a pp oi nted as quick l y a s pos sibl e. . . . [W ] e ca n see wh o the ne w l aw yer is a n d w h en h e’ll b e re ad y t o go [to ] tria l.” The cour t hel d i ts fi nal pre tr i alhear i ng o n M ay 10, 19 94. Sm i th appear ed w i thout counsel, and the c ou rt i nfo rm ed hi m thatthe Publi c Defender’ s o ffi ce had r efused to appo i nta thi r d a tt o r ne y . Sm ith cl ai m ed th i s was the f i rs th e h a d h e a r d o fthi s de v e l o pme nt, b uta l e t t e r to thi s e ffect w as ap p ar en tl y s ent t o W i l m outh, hi s f or m er l aw yer . S m i th r ei ter ate d his desi re f orl ega l co unsel

. A fter m or e di scuss i on, S m i th i nquir ed abo ut hi s o pti ons, to whi chthe c o ur t r es po nd ed , “ W el l, . . . y o u c anr epr es en t yourse lf.” Sm i th r em i nd ed the cour t that a t the M ay 4 he aring, W il m ou th had said t h a t the P ub li c D efend er’s office w ou ld ap p oint Sm ith an oth er l aw yer.4 N o. 07

- 2302 Lateri n the hear i ng, the cour t c onducted anotherbr i ef exam i nati on of Sm i th, ask i ng ess enti al l y the sam e q uestions th at it had at t h e M arch 23 hea ring. T he cou rt l ea r ne d tha t S m i thha d g r adua te d fr o m hi g h s ch o o l a nd re c eive d som e v oca ti onaltr ai ni ng. S m i th al so i nfo rm ed th e c o u r tth a th e h a d b e e n th r o ug h a tl e a s to n e c r i mi nal tr i al, the af or em enti oned pro ceedi ng duri ng wh i ch A tto rneyM ar ol a had r epres en ted hi m . S m i th not ed that he had requ ired t h e h elp of other inm ates to p rep are va r i o us mot i o ns i n the pr es en t ca se . Nea r the e nd o fthe hear i ng, S m i th ag ai n ex p re ssed his desi re f orr epres entation, saying, “Iw o u ld l ike an attorn ey, bu t ifIcan ’t h ire on e, I gu es s I w ill be re p re se n tin g m ys elf.” The fi rs t day ofS m i th’ s tri alcam e o n M ay 31, 19 94. Fr om the b eginning, S m ith m ad e i t cl earthathe wis hed to be re prese nted by counsel

. A fterthe cour t ca l l ed the case , Sm i th im m edi ate l y s ai d, “The Court can appoi nt m e a n att or ney. ” The co urt decl i ned Sm i th’ s r equest and gave S mi th a n opti on. He c o ul d wa i v e h i s r i g htt o a s pe e dy tr i al

— a dem and Sm i th had m ade on M ar c h 1 4 and r ene wed duri ng hi s M ar ch2 3 he ar i ng

— and adj ourn that day’ s pro ceedings, o r he co uld co nti nue i n a pro se f as hi o n. S m i thde cl i ne d t o wai ve hi s spe edyt r i alr i g ht, a nd the c ou rtsa id , “O ka y, w e’ll go to tria l.” S m i thc o nt i nue d t o a ss er t hi s des i r e fo r c o uns eli n the m i nut es pr ec edingv o i r di r e, s ay i ng : “ Ido n’ t th i nk i t’ s r i ght. Ias ked f or an at torney b ef or e, the Court i gnor ed m e . . . . N o w ay Ican de fend m yself bec au se Idon ’t kn ow an yt h in g a b ou t t h e la w .” I mm e di a t e l y p r i o r t o o pe nings t a t e men t s , S m i th mad e a m oti on t o dism i ss base d on the den ial of h i s r i ght t oN o. 07

- 2302 5

The W is consi n Co urt of A pp eal s denied Sm ith’ s fir st d ir ect 1 appe al on M ay 29 , 1996
. Seve n yea rs la t er, how eve r, the W i s c onsin C ou rt of A p p eals rein sta t e d S m ith’s d irect ap p eal rig hts afteri t c oncluded thatdu ri ng Sm ith’ s 1996 app ea l, w hich S m i th ha d fi l e d pro se, Sm ith had no t k no w ing ly and v olu nta rily wa i v e d h i s ri g h tt o p o s t c o n v i c t i o n / a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l

. As we w il l disc uss , i n 2006 , t h e W is consi n Cou rtofAp peals i ss ued a de c i siononSm i th’ s r en ewed a ppea l thatno w bec om es the bas i s f or our r evi ew ofSm i th’ s ha bea s c or pus pe t i t i on. co uns el

. I n s uppo r t o fhi s m o ti o n, Sm ith sa i d the follo w in g: “T h e d efe n d an t ca n ’t p os sib ly d efe n d h iss elf [ si c] i n a c ourto fl aw . . . . Defend an t i s unabl e t o em plo y c ou n se l an d is u n ab le a n d inc a p a b le of m ak in g h is own defense because o fi gnor anc e, feebl em i nd edness, i llite ra cy, o r the l ack ther eof

. ” Despi te Sm i th’ s pro tes tati ons, the cour t condu cted the tr i alwith S m i th ac ti ng pro se . O n Jun e 3, th e j ury f ou nd Sm ith gu il ty of arm ed robbery i n vi o l a t i o n o fWi s . S t a t
. § 9 4 3
. 3 2 ( 1 ) ( a )

- ( 2 )
. S i x we e ks l ate r, o n J uly14 , the cour t s en te n c ed Sm i th to fi ftee n y e a r s i n pr i s o n. I n the y e a r s s i nc e , S mi th ha s t r a v e l e d a long an d tw isted road throu gh the W is c ons in cou rt sy st em, the de ta i l s o fwhi cha re lar g ely i r r el ev an t to the p re se n t a p p ea l. 1 I n a d ecision d ated A ug us t 2 9, 2006 , the W iscons in C ou rt ofA pp eal s d en ied S m i th’ s di re ct a pp eal

. The co urt re counted S m i th’ s inconsi ste nt be havi orduri ng the se ri es ofhear i ngs we di scusse d above , wh er e Sm ith so m eti m es re quested appoi nted counseland at othe r ti m es ass er ted hi s r i g htt o de fen d hi m se l f

. The c o ur t high li ght ed th e6 N o. 07

- 2302 ch oice p resen ted to Sm ith by th e trialcou rt

— ei therwaive hi s r i g htto tr i a l c o un s e l a nd p r o c e e d pro se or w aiv e h is ri ght t o a s peedy tr i aland adj ourn the pr oce edi ngs

— an d Sm i th’ s deci si on t o proce ed w i th t h e t ri al

. The r esul t, sa i d th e c ou rt, w as th at Sm ith , “b y a ss er tin g m u tu ally ex c lu s ive co n st itu tio n al rig h ts (on e o f w h ich w as cle ar ly m or e im p or ta n t t o h im th an th e o th e r ), .
. . w aiv ed h is r i g h tt o c o u n s e l b y o p e r a t i o n o fl a w. ” T h e c o u r ts u mm ar i zed i ts concl usi ons as f ol l ows: “By know i ngl y c hoos

in g t h e fre q u en tly inc on sis te n t c ou rs es of ac tio n h e d id ( b y r e pe a t e dl y r e qu e sti ng t o di s c ha r g e c o un s e l a nd a pp oin t su cc es so r c o uns ela t th e el ev en thho ur, b y s ee k i ng t o p r o c e e d pro se, a nd b y r e fus i ngt o wa i v e h i s s pe e dy t r i a l de ma n d ) , S mi th e s s e n t i a l l y e l e c t e d t o d e fe n d h i mse lf ath is jur y t ria l.” Sm i th’ s j ourne y has now cro sse d overi nto the federal cour t s yst em , wh er e he fi l ed a pet i ti on i n the U ni ted S tat es D ist ric t C ou rtfor t h e W es te rn D is tr ict of W isc on sin see ki ng a w ri t o fhabea s corp u s. S ee28 U .S.C . § 22 54 . In the por tio n ofhi s peti ti on a t i ssue i n thi s a pp eal, S m i th ar g ue d tha t he was de ni ed hi s S i xth Am en dm en t r i g ht to counselattr i aland w as ther efore b eing hel d i n vi ol ati o n o fthe Uni te d S ta te s Con st i tu ti o n. I n an order issu ed on M arch 28, 2007, the d istri ct cou rt dism i sse d the peti ti on a fterco ncl ud i ng tha t the W i sconsin C ou rt of A pp eal s di d not ba se i ts deci si on o n an unr ea so nabl e det er m i na ti on of the f ac ts o r a n un r ea so nabl e a pp l i cati on of U ni ted S tat es l aw . Thi s a pp eal fol low s from that order.N o. 07

- 2302 7 II. A NA LYSIS W e ar e pr es en te d wi tht wo i ss ue s. F i r st, the S ta te c o ntes ts the tim e and m anner i n w hi ch Sm i th fi l ed hi s no ti ce o fa ppea l a nd c l ai m s th atwe are l eft wi th o utj ur i sdi ct i o n. Se c o nd , i fwe h a v e j ur i s di c t i o n, we mus tde c i de , u nd er our defe re nti alst andard ofrevi ew , wh etherS m i th was d en ied h is rig h t t o c ou n se l attria l.

A. Thi s Cour t ’s Jur i s di ct i on on Appe al T h e fi r s ti s s u e th a twe mu s ta d d r e s s i s wh eth e r we po ss es s j ur i sdi ct i o n t o he arthi s appe al

. The S ta te c o ntends thatS m i th di d not a pp ealthe dist ri ct c ourt’s o rder o fM ar ch2 8, 2 00 7, i n a t i m ely manne r . F o r the f o l l o wi n gr e a s o n s, w e d i s a g r e e a n d c o n c l u d e th a twe ha ve j ur i sdi ct i o n. The Feder alRule s o fA pp el l ate Pro ced ure dict ate that a par ty w i shi ng to a p p ealan a dvers e j ud gm ent o r or der m ust fi l e a not i ce o fappealwith the cl er k o fthe dist ri ct cour t w ith in t hi rty days o fthe entr y o fthe conte ste d j ud g men t o r o r de r . F e d. R. App. P. 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A)
. S mi th mad e th r ee fi l i ng s i n 2 00 7 th ata r e po te nt i al l y relev an t to o ur anal ysi s, o ne o n e ach o fthe f ol l owing dates: A pri l 2, A pri l 20 , and J une 4. N ei therS m i th nor th e S tat e disputes that the noti ce o fappealfi l ed by Sm i th o n J une 4, 2007, was unti m el y. I fthatwere Sm i th’ s o nl y fi l i ng, w e would have no choi ce b ut to di sm i ss th e case f orl ack of ju r isd ict ion
. SeeRem erv. Bu rl ington Area Sch. D is t. , 205 F. 3d 990, 99 4 ( 7t h Cir

. 20 00) ( “[ T]he ti m el y fi l i ng o f a n ot ice of ap p ea l is bo th m an d at or y a n d j u ris d ict ion al,8 N o. 07

- 2302 and a not i ce fi l ed to o l ate wil l pre cl ud e a pp el l ate j u ris

d iction.” (qu otations om itted )) ; U ni t e d St at e s ex re l
. Bur t on v. G reer, 6 4 3 F
. 2 d 4 6 6 , 4 6 9 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 8 1 )
. S mi th ’ s t wo ad d iti ona l fi ling s, how ever, both ca m e w ithin R ule 4’s th i r t y - d a y win d o w, a n d S mi th n o w c o n t e n d s th a to ne orbo th o fthes e s er ved as noti ces ofhi s a pp eal, a posi ti on the W i sco nsi n A tto rneyGenera l co ntest s. A cti ng pro se, Sm i th m ade the fi rs t o fthes e fil in gs w ith th e W es te rn D ist ric t o f W isc on sin on A p ril 2, 20 07 . In his letter, Sm ith sou gh t to ap p eal th e d is trict court ’s M ar ch 28 or der di re ctl y t o the Suprem e Court of the Unite d St ate s. I n supp or t, S m i th ci ted S up re m e Cou rt Rule 18 , whi chg o ve r ns the a pprop ri at e pr o ce dur e “[ w]h ena dir ect ap p ea l fr om a deci si on o fa U ni ted S tat es dist ri ct cour t i s a uthor i zed byl aw . ” S up . Ct. R . 1 8( 1)
. I n a l ett er dat ed M ay1 5, 2 00 7, th e S upr eme Co ur t r etur ne d the not ice o fappealto the dist ri ct c ourt, st ati ng tha t di re ct appeal o fa dist ri ct c ou rt o rderi s per m i tte d onl y when iss u ed by a th re e-ju d ge d i s t r i c t co u rtp an el. See 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1253
. I t w as after receiving the Sup r em e C ou rt’s re sponse that Sm i th fi led hi s unti m el y no ti ce o fappealto thi s co urt on J une 4, 20 07. I n the i nter i m per i od bet w een fi l i ng hi s no ti ce o f ap p eal to the Sup rem e C o urt and receiving the Cou rt’s re sponse, S m i th, ag ai n act i ng pro se, made a se co nd fi l i ng. H e fi l ed a docum ent, capti oned “Ci rcui t Rul e 5 2 C ertification of Q ue stion of State La w , ” w ith our cou rt on A pri l 20, 2007
. This subm i ssi on, spanning th irty- fi ve h an dw ri tte n pages , appears to detai l ev er y per cei ved wro nghe e ndur ed i n the the n- th i r te eny ea r s sinc e th e date o fthe ar m ed robber y.N o. 07

- 2302 9 T h e q u e s t i o n w e mu s t a n s w e r i s o n e w i th w h i c h we are f am i l i ar, part i cul ar l y when confro nted w i th a pro se party : w hethereither ofthe fi l i ngs m ade withi n the thi rtyday deadl i ne i s s uffi ci ent t o serve as a va l i d noti ce o f appe al

. Ge ne r al l y, a no ti ce o fa ppea l must( 1) c ontain the nam e o fthe partyo r parti es tak i ng the appeal ; ( 2) desi gna te the j udg m en t o r o r der, o r pa r t th er eo f, b eing ap peal ed; and ( 3) nam e the co urt to w hi ch the appeal is being ta ken

. Fed

. R. A p p . P. 3(c)(1)
. W hen a partypro ceeds pro se, ho w ev er , w e w i l l, if p ossible, l iberall y c o ns tru e his actions to find Ru le 3’ s re q u ire m en ts sa tis fied

. Sm i t h v
. Barry , 5 02 U
. S. 24 4, 24 8 (19 92 ); s e e, e . g. , L istenbee v . City of M ilw a uk ee, 97 6 F
. 2d 348, 35 0- 51 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92) ( re cogni zi ng a party ’ s m oti on f o r an exte ns i o n o ft i m e to fi l e a no ti ce o fa ppea l a s th e n ec es sa ry n ot ice o fap p ea l); Sc herer v. Kelley, 58 4 F
. 2d 170, 174 ( 7th Ci r. 19 78) ( noti ng tha t pro se not ices of ap p eal “are en ti tl ed to a l ibe r alc o ns truct i o n whe r e th e inten t o fthe appe l l an t i s appa r en t an d the a dvers e par tyi s no t pr ej ud ic e d ”). Ou r obli gation to con stru e liberally Ru le 3’ s dict ate s, however, does notexcuse true nonco m pli ance, w h ich rem ain s fa ta l to a n y a p p ea l. B a rry, 50 2 U.S
. at24 8. I n B a rry, 50 2 U.S
. 24 4, the Suprem e Cour t hel d that a pro separty’ s a pp el l ate br i effuncti oned as hi s no ti ce o f ap p ea l. T h e C ou rtst at ed th at w h en a filin g is “ ‘te c h n ica lly at va ria n c e’ ” w ith R u l e 3 ’ s r eq u ire m en ts , a co u rtsh ou ld co ns true the fil ing as a va l i d no ti ce o fa ppea l i fi t i s th e
“ ‘ functi onalequi val ent o fwh at the ru le r equi re s. ’ ” Id. at 248 ( quoti ng Torre s v. O a k land Sc ave nge rCo. , 48 7 U.S
. 31 2, 317 ( 1988 ) )
. The C ourtthen f ocuse d i ts disc ussi on o n10 N o. 07

- 2302

I n O rt iz , we no t ed thatc erta i n s i t uat i ons woul d pre ven tthe 2 app li cat ion ofthis general rule , 94 F. 3d at 1125, and on e s uch situa tion is w he re a d irect ap p eal to the Su p rem e C ou rt is (co n tin u ed ...) the p ur po s e o fR ul e 3 , whi c h i ts a i d wa s t o p r o v i de “suffi ci ent noti ce to othe r parti es and the co urts
. ” Id. ; see a lso To rres , 487U .S. at 3 18 ; U nited Sta tes v. M usa , 94 6 F.2d 129 7, 1301 ( 7th Cir. 1991). T he Cou rt said th at “[i] f a d oc u m ent fi l ed w i thi n the ti m e speci fi ed by Rule 4 gi ves th e n ot ice r equi re d by Rul e 3 , i t i s e ffecti ve as a noti ce o fappeal

. ” B a rry, 50 2 U.S
. at24 8- 49. W i th the s e g e ne r a l pr i nc i pl e s i n mi nd , we t urn fi r s tto Sm i th’ s Ap ri l 2 fi l i ng with the di str i ct c ourt, i n w hi ch he s o ug htdi r ec t revi ew b y the S upr eme Co ur t o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s M ar ch 28 or der. Thi s fi l i ng co ntai ned both the nam e o fthe partyta ki ng the appealand desi gna ted the ord er being ap p ealed , thu s satisfyi ng Ru le 3( c)’s firs t t w o re q u ire m en ts
. See Fe d . R . A p p . P. 3(c)(1) (A )- (B). The o nl y v ar i ance fr o m Rul e 3 was i n the na m e o fthe c ou rtto w h ich th e a p p ea l w a s b ein g t ak en . Se ei d. 3( c) ( 1) ( C). I nstea d ofse eking appealto this co urt as he s ho ul d ha ve , S m i ths o ug htt o a ppea l di r ec tly t o the Sup rem e C ou rt. Th is w as a non -f atal error. Whe n a p a r t y ma y a p p e a l o n l y t o a c er ta i n c o u r t, we have re cogni zed the val id ity o f a noti ce o fappealthat co nt ains no m en ti o n w ha ts o ev erofthe co ur t t o w hi chthe case i s be i ng ta ke n ; we i nfe r that the par ty i ntended to appeal to the onl y a vai l abl e for um . S e e O r t iz v . Jo h n O. Butl e rCo. , 94 F .3d 11 21 , 112 5 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ). H e r e , a s in 2N o. 07

- 2302 11

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 a v a ila b le u n d er 2 8 U .S.C . § 1 2 5 3 , M u sa , 94 6 F .2d at 13 01
. D esp ite the inv oca tio n o f § 125 3 in th e Su p rem e C ou rt’ s resp on se to Sm i th’ s at t em pt ed a ppea l , ho wever, s uc h a c as e i s no tno w b e f o r e u s . S mi th ’ s mi s g u i d e d e ff o r tt o a p p e a l t o th e S u p r e me Cour tdoe s no tc han ge the f ac tthatthi s c our twas the n, an d is now , the on ly co u rt to w hich he co u ld ap p eal. O rt iz , S m i thha d o nl y o ne a va i l ab l e ap p ell at e f o r um . The f act that he di d not underst and thi s co nstr ai nt, as eviden ce d b y hi s er r o ne o us a tt empt t o a ppea l t o the Suprem e Cour t, i s o fl i ttl e co nsequence. Fu rt h er , w e ha ve h eld th at a no tic e of ap p ea l w a s va lid eve n w hen, as her e, i t desi gnate d t h e w ro ng co urt f or appeal

. S ee M usa , 94 6 F
. 2d at 1301
. I n M usa , the a pp e l l a nt, a c t i ngwi th the a s s i sta nce o fc o un s e l, fi l e d a ti m el y no ti ce o fappeal, but i n c or rectl y desi gnate d as th e a p p ella te co u rtth e U n ite d Sta te s C ou rtof A p p ea ls for th e E igh th C irc u it. Id. W e found that thi s fl aw did not preve nt the not i ce of ap pealfro m f ai rl y no ti fyi ng bo th th e op p osing p arty an d district cou rt of th e ap p ell an t’s i ntent to appeal, and w e hel d that the not i ce o fappeal w as th er efo re su fficie n t. Id. T h e St at e a tt em p ts to d ist in gu ish th e t w o c as es . I t argu es tha t, unl i k e i n O rt iz , S mi th’ s i nt e ntt o s e e kr e vi ew in the Sup rem e C ou rt w as obviou s, m aking i t un ne cess ary to infe r th e c ou r t t o w h ich Sm ith int en d ed to ap p ea l. And unl i k e i n M usa , the S ta te c o nt en ds, S m ith m ade no mi s t a k e i n de ci di ngthe c o ur tt o wh i c h he a pp e a l e d; he i nt en ti o na l l y a tt empte d t o b y pass th is c o ur t, thus r e nd e r i ngh i s n o t i c e o fa pp e a l i nv a l i d.12 N o. 07

- 2302 T he State’s argum en ts, w hich hinge largely on Sm ith’s su bj ec ti ve i nt en ti o ns , a r e unc o nv i nc i ng . I n Barry, the Su p re m e C ou rt, w h e n d isc u ss in g w h et h er th e p et iti oner ’ s a pp el l ate br i efwas the functi onalequi val ent o f a no ti ce o fa ppea l, do wnpl ay ed th e pet i ti o ne r ’ s i nt en ti o ns : “ [ T] he no ti ce a ff o r ded bya do cument, no t th e l i ti g an t’ s m o ti va ti o n in fil i ngi t, de te r m i ne s th e do cum ent’ s s uffi ci ency as a notic e of appeal

. ” 5 02 U
. S. at24 8. W e fi nd the Court’ s s enti m ents ap p li cabl e in thi s ca se as w el l, and w e decl i n e to d elve i nto Sm i th’ s s ubj ecti ve i ntenti ons w hen he fi l ed hi s Ap ri l 2 not ice o f ap pealto th e S upr eme Co ur t. I n M usa , we excused a m i sta ken appeal to th e E i ghth Ci rcui t, ev en tho ugh thatm i sta ke w as m ade bya pract i ci ng at torney, nota pro se party
. 9 4 6 F
. 2 d a t1 3 0 1
. I tw o u l d b e i n c o n g r u o u s n o tt o p r o v i de at l ea st th at sa m e l ev el o f defer en ce to a party acting w ith ou t t h e b en efitof co u n se l. As th e C o u r ti n s t r u c t e d i n B a r ry, w e return to the p urpose ofa noti ce o fappeal, w h ich i s t o provi de f ai r noti ce to both the opposi ng par ty and the di str i ct c ourt . 5 02 U .S. at 2 48 ; see also M usa , 94 6 F
. 2d at 1301
. S m i th unquesti onabl y pr ovi ded adequate noti ce in thi s ca se. That Sm i th wished t o appeal the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o rderwas ap p ar en t. E q u ally as ap p ar en t t o a p ar ty w ell-v er se d in the l a w, s uc h a s the Wi s c o ns i n At t o r ne y Ge ne r a l, i s tha t thi s a pp ealhad to be t ake n i n the onl y c ourti n w hi ch su cha n a ppea l c o ul d s ta nd

— the Unite d Sta tes Courto f Appe a l s f o r the S e v e nth Ci r c ui t
. As a r e s ul t, the S tat e cannot cl ai m to have bee n prej ud i ced i n any r ega rd. Giv en the l iber alco nstr ucti on that we ge ne ral l y o w e a pro se par ty ’ s fi l i ng s, we ho l d, a s we di d i n O rt iz a nd M usa , thatN o. 07

- 2302 13 Sm ith ’s a tt em p te d ap p ea l t o th e Su p re m e C ou rt, tim ely fi l ed w ith t h e d i str i ct c ourt, was the “functi onalequi val ent” ofa propernot i ce o fappeal

. It is therefor e unneces sa r y f o r us t o c o ns i derwhethe r S m i th ’ s se co nd fi l i ng w oul d have a l so ser ved as a functi onalnot i ce o fap p eal und erRule 3. H avi ng dete rm i ned that w e hav e j uri sdic

ti on t o hearthi s a pp eal, we now tur n to the m er i ts of S m i th ’ s pet i ti o n.

B
. Sm ith ’s Six th A m end m ent R igh t to Tria l C o un sel U nd erthe A nti ter ro ri sm and Effecti ve Death Penal ty A ct ( A ED PA ) , we m ay gr ant a pet itio n f orhabea s r el i ef f r o m a s t a t e c o ur tj ud g men to nl y i n o ne o ft wo l i mite d circum stan ces: i f th e state cou rt de cision (1) w as “con trary to , or i n v o l ve d an u n re as on ab le a p p lica tio n of, cle ar ly e s t a b l i s h e d F e d e r a l l a w, a s d e t e r mi n e d b y t he S u p r e me Cou rt o fthe U ni ted S tat es; ” o r ( 2) “was bas ed on a n unr ea so nabl e det er m i na ti o n o fthe f ac ts i n l i g hto fthe ev i d en c e p re se n te d in t h e St at e c ou rtp ro c ee d in g.” 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254( d). I n conducti ng thi s defer enti alev al uatio n , we pres um e that the st ate co urt’ s f actualdeter m i nati ons ar e co rr ect, a presum ption the peti ti onerm ay re b u t o n ly b y c lea r an d co n vin c in g e vid en c e. Id. § 2 254( e) ( 1)
. A s the peti ti oner, S m i th be ar s the bur den o fs ho wi ngtha tthe s t a t e c o urt’ s fi nd i ngo ff a c to r i t s a ppl i ca ti o n o ffede r all aw was no t o nl y e r r o ne o us , b ut u n re as on ab le. Se eWa dd ingt on v. Sa r aus ad, 12 9 S
. Ct. 82 3, 831 (2009 ); Stu rgeo n v . Ch a nd ler, 552 F. 3d 604, 60 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. W e r ev i ew the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s l eg alc o nc l us i o ns deno vo an d it s fac tu al fin d in gs for c lea r er ro r. St urge on , 552 F. 3d at 609.14 N o. 07

- 2302 The Si xth A m endm ent ofthe U ni ted Stat es Consti tuti on guar antee s a party e ngage d i n a c ri m i nal pro secuti on th e as si st an ce of co uns el

. U. S
. Co ns t. a m en d. VI
. The D ue Proces s C lause of the Fou rteen th A m e n d m e nt i nc orpora ted thi s r i ght, m aking i t a pp l i cabl e t o state cr i m i nal p ro se c u tio n s a s w ell. See U .S. Const. am end. XI V, § 1; D anforth v. M innesota , 1 28 S
. Ct
. 1 02 9, 1 03 5 ( 20 08 ) ( ci ting Gide on v. Wai nwr ight, 372 U
. S. 335 (1963)). Altho ug h the Co ns ti tu ti o n pr o vi des the r i gh t to the ass i sta nce of counsel, i t does not perm i t a sta te to force u n w an te d co u n se l up on a p ar ty
. SeeFare tt a v. C alif ornia , 42 2 U. S
. 8 06 , 8 20 (19 75 ) ( “T o thr us t co uns elupo n the ac cus ed, a g ains t hi s co ns i der ed wi sh, thus v i o l at es the l o g i c o fth e [ S i x th ] A me n d me n t
. ” )
. I n s t e a d , th e S u p r e me Cou r t ha s i nt er pr et ed th e S i xth Am en dm en t as c o nta i ni ng an i m pl i ed r i g ht to wai ve co uns eland r epr es en t on es elf. Se ei d. at82 1. To b e v alid, a defe nd ant’ s wai ver o fthe r i g htt o c o uns elmustb e m ad e kno wi ng l y a nd i n te llige n tly

. Id. at 83 5; see also Joh nso n v . Zerbst, 30 4 U
. S. 458, 464 (1938 ). No t wi th s t a ndi ngth e r i gh tt o r e p r e s e n to n e s e l f, h o wever, courts h ave con tinu ed to recognize th e overwh e l m i ng adv a n t a g e s th a ta n a c c u s e d g a i n s fr o m a l a wye r’s gu id an c e. Se e, e. g. , Faret ta , 422 U .S. at 8 34 (“It is und eni abl e that in m ostcr i m i nal pro secuti ons defe nd ants c ou ld be tt er d efe n d w ith co u n se l’s gu id an c e t h an by th eir ow n u n sk illed effo rt s.” ); U nited Sta tes v. M o ya -G o m ez , 86 0 F.2d 7 0 6 , 7 32 (7th C ir. 1988) (sugges ting th at a cou rt i nfo rm a defendant “thati t would be unw i se not toN o. 07

- 2302 15

Se e a l s o Po we l l v . Al a b a ma , 28 7 U. S. 45 , 69 ( 19 32) ( “Eve n the 3 i ntell i ge ntan d educ at ed l aym an has s m al l an d s om et i m es no s ki l l i n th e s c i e n c e o fl a w. . . . He l a c k s b o th th e s k i l l a nd knowl edge ade qua t el y t o pr epa re hi s defen s e, e venthough he have a perfectone. H e re quires the guiding hand of counsel ate ver y s t ep . . . . W i thout it, th ough he be no tgui l t y, he fa ce s th e d a n g er o f co n v ic tio n . . . . ” ). accept the a ssi sta n c e of counsel ”)
. Fo r thi s r eas on, co urts 3 are he sit an t to fi nd a wai ve r o fthe r i g htt o c o uns ela nd “w i l l i nd ulg [ e] ev er y re aso nabl e pr esum pti on a gainst the wai ver . ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Be la ng er, 93 6 F
. 2d 916, 91 9 (7th C ir. 1991) (al teration in original) (qu otations om itted ); see also V

o n M o ltk e v. G illies , 33 2 U.S
. 70 8, 72 3 ( 1948 ) ( Blac k, J
. , pl ural i ty opi ni on) ( noti ng “the st ro ng pre su m pti on ag ains t wai ve r o fthe c o ns ti tu ti o na l r i g htt o c o uns el ” an d “the ser i ous a nd weighty r esponsibili ty up on the tr i al j udg e o fde te r m i ni ngwhetherthe r e i s ani nt el l i g en t an d c om p e t e n t w aiv er by th e a c c u se d ”); Johns on , 30 4 U.S
. at 464 ( “[ W ] e do not p re sum e a cquie scence in the l oss o f fun d am en tal ri gh ts.” ( qu otations om itted ))
. Th is i s p artic u lar ly tr u e w h en ev alu at in g w aiv er of tr ial c ou n se l, w hi ch i s e ven m or e fi er cely p ro tected than the r i ght t o c ou n se l ato th er s ta ge s o f a c rim in al p ro c ee d in g. Patt e rs on v. Il li nois , 487 U
. S. 285, 298 (1988 ) (c o m p aring cou ns el’ s r o l e a tv a r i o u s s t a g e s i n c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s a n d c o mm enti ng o n “the enor m ous i m port ance a nd r ol e that an attorn ey p lays at a cri m inal tri al”). The W i sco nsi n C ourto fA pp eal s’ s o pini on i denti fi ed tw o separ ate gr ounds i n supp or t o fi ts c on c lusi on that Sm ith w aived his r ight to trialcou ns el. Fi rst w ere Sm i th’ s “ i nconsi ste nt co urse s o fact i on ,” in w hi ch Sm i th16 N o. 07

- 2302

Duri ng the M ar c h 2 3 h ea ri ng a twhi c h At t or ne y Sarg ent 4 (co n tin u ed ...) vaci l l ate d b etween uti l i zi ng appoi nted counseland re prese n tin g h im se lf. T h e s ec on d gro u n d w as Sm ith ’s r e fu sa l, o n the da y o fhi s t r i al, t o a dj o ur n pr o ce eding s, no twi th

sta nd i ng hi s co nti nued pl eas f orap p ointe d assi sta nce. On a ppea l, S m i thc o nt en ds th atthi s dec i si o n b y the W isc on s i n C ou rtof A p p ea ls w as bo th an u n re as on ab le ap p lica ti on o fcl ear l y e stabl i shed federa l l aw and an u n r e a s o n a b l e d e t e r mi n a t i o n o ff a c t s . Up o n re vi e w, we a g r e e a nd fi nd tha th a b e a s r e l i e fi s wa r r a nt e d. Ince rt ain c i r c u m st an c es , a d efe n d an t m ay w aiv e h is rig h t t o c ou n se l t h ro u gh n oton ly h is w or d s, b u t a lso h is c on d u c t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tr aeger, 289 F. 3d 461, 47 5 ( 7th C ir. 20 02 ); s e e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. O r eye, 26 3 F
. 3d 669, 67 0 (7t h C ir. 20 01 ); U nited Sta tes v. Irorere, 22 8 F
. 3d 816, 82 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)
. Thi s ca se i s di stingui shabl e from tho se i n whi ch we ha ve f o und su ch wai ve r, ho wev er . I n Traeg er, f o r e xa m pl e, the t r i alc o ur t, a t th e ti m e i t per m i tt ed th e defe nd ant t o fi re hi s l aw yer, warned the defendant that he wo ul d h a v e t o p r o c e e d pro se b ec au se th e c o u rtw ou ld no ta p p o i n th i m a n o th e r a t t o r n e y . 2 8 9 F
. 3 d a t4 7 5
. The defen dan ts r ec ei ve d s i m i l arwar ni ng s i n b o th O r eye, 26 3 F
. 3 d a t6 7 0 , a nd Irorere, 22 8 F
. 3d at 827- 28. U nl i ke i n thos e case s, the W i sco nsi n tr i alco urt provi ded no such w arn ings to Sm ith. I n fact, a t the tim e the cou rt pe r mi t t e d S mi th t o r e l i e v e h i s s e c o n d a t t o r n e y, i tma de cl earthati t e xpe c te d Sm i th to be re prese nted by a new att or ney withi n a week. 4N o. 07

- 2302 17

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 sought t o w ithd raw , the court tol d Sm ith that“the nextatt orney you g etwil l ha ve t o be the on e thatr epr es en t[ s i c ] you w he th er y ou li ke itor not. ” This w arning, how ever, w as ne ga t e d b y t he c ou r t ’ s s ub s e q ue nta s s ur a nc e s t o S m i th, m a de at l aterheari ngs, ofa third app oint ed counsel, and w e therefore refu se to co nsid er it as p art o f ou r an aly sis. T h e P u b l i c D e fe n d e r ’ s o f f i c e p r o v i d e d S mi th wi th t wo l a wy e r s , b o th o fw h o m S mi th t e r mi n a t e d

. B u ta tth e t i me Sm i th r ej ecte d the seco nd , A tto rneyW i l m outh, he di d so und er t he i m press i on that he w oul d be a pp oi nted new co uns el

. At Smi th ’ s M ay4 he ar i ng, W i l m o uth, a ddr es sing the c ourti n Sm i th’ s prese nce, sai d that he had spoke n w i th th e Publ i c Defender’ s o ffi ce, wh i ch had i nd i cate d i ts i nt en ti o ns t o a ppo i nta thi r d a tt o r ne y t o r epr es en t S m i th

. T he cou rt, in fact, m ad e its d ecision to gran t W il m ou th ’s w i thdrawal c ontinge nt o n another appoint m ent: “I’ ll gr ant t he m ot i on M r . W i l m outh on t he condit i on . . . t hat a n ew att orne y sh ou ld b e ap p ointed a s q u ick ly as po ssib le.” The c o ur t th ens eta no th er st atu s he ar i ngf o r the follo w i ng week, “ s o we c a n s e e who t he ne w l a wyer is an d w h en h e’l l b e re ad y to go to trial.” I t was not unti l a w eek l ate r, atthe M ay 10 hear i ng, that Smi th l e a r ne d tha tthe P ub l i c De fe nd e r wo ul d n ot pr o vi de hi m a no th erl aw y er . W he n S m i tha sk ed ab o ut hi s o pti ons, the cour t pr ovi ded o nl y o n e: sel f

- re prese ntati o n. S m i thr ei te r at ed th roug ho utthe M ay1 0 he ar i ng hi s des i r e f o r c o uns el, a r equest th athe r ea ss er te d o n the day o fhi s t ri al, al l to no avai l

. The co u rt c on cl ud ed that18 N o. 07

- 2302 Sm i th, havi ng fi re d his pre viou s tw o appoint ed l aw yer s, ha d el ecte d t o p r o c e e d pro se . Ye t w h en ex am in ed in conte xt, S m i th had done nothi ng o f the sor t. S m i th, r ather tha n e l e c t i ngt o p r o c e e d pro se, had s i m ply req u ested anothe r l aw yer, a re quest he m ade w i th the cour t’ s b less

i ng. Thu s, wh i l e i t i s ofte n t rue that “[ i ] fyo u’r e g i ven seve ra l o pti ons, and turn dow n al l bu t one, yo u’ve sel ecte d the o ne y ou di dn ’ t turn dow n, ” O r eye, 26 3 F
. 3d at6 70 , the “ se ve r al op ti o ns ” av ai l ab l e to the de fen dan t m u s t b e c lea r, see id. at 671. S m i th was neveri nfo rm ed ofhi s o pti ons and, w ith ou t such i nfo rm ati on, co uld not po ss ibl y ha ve mad e h i s dec i si o n wi th“ ey es o pen, ” as the Su p re m e C ou rt h as req u ire d

. SeeFare tt a , 42 2 U.S
. at83 5. I t i s unre aso nabl e that s uch a deci si on, m ade i n thes e ci r cumst an ce s, c o ul d b e i nt er pr et ed as a kno wi nga nd vo lunt ar y wai ve r o fS m i th ’ s S i xth Am en dm en t r i g ht to co u n se l. Furtherm or e, we fi nd no w ai veri n Sm i th’ s e l ecti on t o proce ed to tr i alwh en the co urt gave hi m the choice o f adj ourni ng the proce edi ngs a nd waiving hi s r i ght t o a spe edyt r i al

. S m i thb eg anthe d ay o fhi s tr i alb y r en ewing hi s r equest f orappoi nted counsel

. The co urt denie d Sm i th’ s r equest and sai d, “I t’ s up to yo u, d o you want to g o a he a d wi th the t r i a l o r do y o u wa nt t o a dj o urn i t? Do yo u w ant t o w ai ve yourr i ght t o a s peedy trial ?” Sm ith r ep l i ed si m ply, “N o, Idon’ t want to waive m y rig h t.” The probl em , ag ai n, i s that the co urt gave S m i th no re al op ti o ns . Tr ue , S m i thc o ul d ha ve a dj o ur ne d the da y ’sN o. 07

- 2302 19 p ro c ee d in gs , bu t w h at w ou ld h e h av e g ain ed ? Im m ed iate l y b ef or e g i vi ng S m i th hi s “choi ce, ” the cour t r ei ter ate d th at Sm ith w ou ld be ap p oin te d n o fu rt h er co u n se l, a f act confi rm ed by the Publ i c Defender’ s office, wh i ch se nta no te t o the j udg e j us t be f o r e vo i r di r e i ndi ca ting that i t would notpro vi de Sm i th ano therat torney. Such a H obs on’ s choi ce i s actual l y no choi ce at al l

. U nd er these ci rcum sta nces, w e fin d it u n reaso nabl e t o re cogni ze Sm i th’ s e l ecti on t o proce ed t o tr i alas a k no wi nga nd v o l unt ar y wai ve r o fs ucha n i m po r ta nt and fundam entalr i ght. A t the ti m e S m i th te rm i nated W i l m ou th , he di d not k no w, no r di d the c o ur t war n hi m , tha t i n s o do i nghe wa s e l e c t i ngt o p r o c e e d pro se . T hi s i s i n di r e c tc o nt ra dict i on t o Suprem e Cour t pr ecedent, wh i ch i m p ose s “ t he m o st rigo rou s restriction s on the i nfo rm ati on that m ust be conve yed to a defe nd an t, and the pro cedures that m ust be obser ved. ” Patt e rs on , 487 U
. S. at 2 98 (em p ha sis add ed ). The Suprem e Court has not provi ded exte nsi ve dir ecti on on the natur e o fthe “r i gor ous res tr i cti ons . . . [ and] pr oce d u re s ” t h at a c ou rtm u st ob se rv e b efo re find in g v alid w aiv e r o fa d efe n d an t’s righ t t o t ria l co u n se l. Se eM oyaG o m ez , 860 F.2d at73 2; se e also U nite d State s v. H il l , 25 2 F
. 3d 919, 92 5 ( 7th Ci r. 2001 ) ( express i ng doubt “that any [ proce d u ra l] list c an be m an d at ed ”). Bu ts e eV o n Molt ke, 3 32 U
. S. at72 4 ( Blac k, J., p lural i ty opi ni on) ( sta ti ng tha t a va l i d wai ve r “ m us t be made wi than appr eh en si o n o fthe n at ure ofthe charg es, the sta tutor y o ffenses i ncl ud ed w i thi n them , the ra ng e of a l l owable punishm ents ther eund er, poss ibl e defenses to the charges and ci rcum sta nces20 N o. 07

- 2302 i n m i ti gat i on there of, and al l o therf acts e ss en ti alto a broad un d erstan d ing of th e w hole m atter” ). T h e C ou rth as sa id , ho w ev er , th at a d efe n d an t “ sh ou ld be m ad e aw are of th e d an ge r s and disad van tages of selfr epr es en ta ti o n, s o tha t th e r ec o r d wi l l establ i shtha t ‘ he knows w ha t h e i s doi ng and hi s cho i ce i s m ade with e yes open. ’ ” F a retta , 42 2 U.S
. at83 5 ( quoti ng A da m s v. U nited St at e s ex re l
. M cCann , 3 1 7 U .S. 26 9, 27 9 (1 94 2)); see also B ela ng er, 93 6 F
. 2d at 918

- 19 ( sugge sting tha t the j ud ge i nfo rm the defe nd ant o fthe n atur e o fthe charg ed cri m es, poss ibl e s entence s, and the diffi culties that ac c ru e fro m ac tin g a s o n e’s ow n co u n se l); M o ya -G o m ez , 86 0 F .2d at73 2 (re c om m e n d in g t h at a c ou rtte ll a defe nd ant the d i ffi cul ti es ofact i ng pro seand encour age th e d efe n d an t t o a c c ep t c ou n s e l’s a ss ist an c e); cf. H il l , 25 2 F
. 3d at 92 8 ( es ch ewi ngthe us e o fa “ ch ec k

- o ffl i st ” so l o ng as it i s clear that th e d efend an t “u nd erstood h is options” ). W e r em ai n m i nd ful ofthe diffi cul t pos i tio n in wh i ch the S i xth A m endm ent’ s par al l elr i ghts to ass i sta nce o f counseland sel f

- re pres entat i on ca n pla ce a tr i alj ud ge. Se eO r eye, 263 F .3d at 672 ( noti ng tha t a j ud ge m ust b a l a nc e o n a “ r a z o r ’ s e dg e ” b e t we e n the t wo S i xth Am e nd

m ent r igh ts because “[ i ] fthe j ud ge exagg er ate s e i ther the advantage s of bei ng r epres ented o r the di sadvantag es o f se l f

- r epr es en ta ti o n, he wi l l be ac cus ed o f ha vingput h is t h u m b on th e s c ale ”); U nited Sta tes v. S a n d l es , 23 F. 3d 1121 , 1127 (7th Cir. 1994). No ne the l e s s , e v e n the S up r e me Co ur t ’ s mi ni malgui dan ce make s it clear tha t th e pr o ce dur es f o l l o wed b y the W i sco nsi n sta te tr ial c ou rt w er e in ad eq u at e toN o. 07

- 2302 21 d em ons trate a kn ow ing an d volun tary w aiver ofSm ith’s rig h t t o t ria l co u n se l. A s w e h av e a llu d ed to , th e c ou rt, in a s er i es ofint er acti ons that one coul d onl y desc ribe a s
“ c ur s o r y o r b y - the

- wa y i n na t ur e, ” B e l a ng er, 93 6 F
. 2d at 918 ( quotati ons om i tte d), neve r m ad e a ny at tem pt to ensure thatS m i th kne w hi s va ri ous o pti ons and w as aw ar e ofthe dangero us te rr ai n i nto w hi ch he was enter i ng, nor to p ro vi de Sm i th with any guidance on how b e s t t o nav igate his treach erou s cou rse. T he cou rt’s f ai l ur e to e ns ur e th atS m i thunde r st ood hi s o pti o ns a nd ma d e a n i n f o r me d d e c i s i o n wa s a v i o l a t i o n o f fe d e r a l l a w. T he W i sc o ns i n Co ur t o fAppea l s’ s co nc l us i o n t o the contr ar y was unre aso nabl e.

III. C ON CLU SI ON Forthe re aso ns abo ve, we conclud e, fi rs t, thatwe have j uri sd i ct i o n o n a ppea l

. S ec o nd, we ho l d tha t th e W i sco nsi n Court ofA pp eal s, i n determ ini ng tha t S m i th kno wi ng l y a nd v o l unt ar i l y wai ve d hi s S i xth Am en dm en t rig h t t o a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l, m ad e a n u n re as on ab le deter m i nati on o fthe f acts and unreas onabl y a pp l i ed fe de r a l l a w. W e R EV ERSE the d ecision of th e d istri ct cou rt a nd R EMA ND with instr ucti ons to G RANTthe p et it ioner’s re quest fora w ri t o fhabea s co rp us, pursuant to 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254. I fthe St ate el ects notto r etr y S m i th w i thi n 120 days, he s hal l be re l eas ed fro m co nfinem ent.

5- 15- 09