Document: Cite as: 569 U. S. ____ (2013) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JOHN MARSHALL, WARDEN v. OTIS LEE RODGERS ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT No. 12–382. Decided April 1, 2013 PER CURIAM. Respondent Otis Lee Rodgers, challenging his state con- viction, sought a writ of habeas corpus from the United States District Court for Central California. He claimed courts violated Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance counsel by declining ap- point an attorney assist in filing motion new trial notwithstanding three prior waivers counseled representation. The denied respondent’s petition, and he appealed Appeals Ninth Circuit, which granted relief. 678 F.3d 1149, 1163 (2012). Because erred concluding that claim is supported “clearly established Federal law, as deter- mined Supreme States,” 28 U.S. C. §2254(d)(1), its judgment must be reversed. I In 2001, State California charged respondent with making criminal threats, assault firearm, be- ing felon possession firearm ammunition. Before arraignment, executed valid waiver counsel, electing represent himself. See Faretta California, 422 806, 807 (1975). By time preliminary hearing, however, changed mind retained coun- sel. Then, two months later, fired lawyer again waived counsel. Two after that, re- spondent asked court 2 MARSHALL appoint attorney. did so. Shortly before trial, third surrendered proceeded pro se. On June 27, 2003, jury returned verdict guilty. After was read, provide help him file trial. judge deferred ruling on later renewed request writing. Neither oral nor written included reasons support request; when offered chance supplement or explain at declined do Respondent’s se likewise denied. direct review Appeal affirmed convictions sentence. As relevant here, it concluded history vacillating between seled self-representation, lack motion, demonstrated competence defending case, insistence “ ‘c[ould] [him]self ’ ” but ‘just need[ed] perfect it,’ App. Pet. Cert. 129–130, justified court’s denial post-trial appellate also distinguished decision Circuit Menefield Borg, 881 F.2d 696 (1989), reasoning petitioner had stated justifying whereas unreasoned unexplained. “[b]ecause [trial] not given any reason grant [respondent’s] we cannot find abused discretion so.” 130. Having failed obtain relief court, filed federal arguing 3 providing new-trial motion. petition certificate appealability. versed, holding “Sixth timely representation mo- tion.” F. 3d, 1163. To reach conclusion sel these circumstances clearly States, invoked certain precedents own earlier cases other Circuits. From those precedents, panel identi- fied principles deemed have been this Court’s cases: first, de- fendant’s does bar election receive critical stage prosecution, absent proof reappointment made bad faith, see id., 1159–1162; and, second, stage, 1156–1159. Combining propositions, held purposes courts—which vest prove deny such requests based totality circumstances, People Lawley, 27 Cal. 4th 102, 147– 151, 38 P.3d 461, 493–495 (2002)—violated refusing order 1162–1163. II starting subject §2254(d)(1) identify States” governs petitioner’s claims. Williams 4 Taylor, 529 362, 412 (2000); Knowles Mirzayance, 556 111, 122 (2009). indicated above, parties here dispute whether law are under framework. One whether, defendant’s Faretta, post-trial, preappeal prosecution. For analysis will assumed, without so holding, is. disputed question defend- ant’s has resolving favor, first (correctly) “the never explicitly addressed ability re-assert counsel” once validly it. 1159 (internal quotation marks omitted). It then (also correctly) recog- nized nearly identical facts itself mean there no since “a general standard” can supply law. Yarborough Alvarado, 541 652, 664 (2004). Ap- peals erred, application latter prop- osition controlling issues here. beyond “[t]he safe- guards accused who faces incarceration all stages process.” Iowa Tovar, 77, 80–81 (2004); Cronic, 466 648, 653–654 (1984); Gideon Wain- wright, 372 335, 344 (1963). just well settled, defendant “proceed voluntarily intelligently elects S., 807. There some tension principles. observed, “[t]here blinking fact conduct 5 fense seems cut against grain deci- sions Constitution requires convicted imprisoned unless accorded counsel.” Id., 832. resolved adopting framework review. Under approach, judges afforded considering postwaiver counsel; their decisions “in- clud[ing] ‘the quality [the defendant’s] [himself], proclivity substitute request, length proceedings, disruption delay [that] might reasonably expected follow granting motion.’ supra, 149, P. 494 (quoting Windham, 19 3d 121, 128, 560 P.2d 1187, 1191–1192 (1977); final alteration original). applied rules case bar, circumstances—and especially shifting nature preferences, unexplained capacity handle incidents trial—supported decision. 128–131. Appeals, ten- sion differently direct-review cases. adopted ‘strong presumption post- should refused,’ 1160 Robinson Igna- cio, 360 1044, 1058 (CA9 2004); emphasis deleted), default rule ‘in absence extraor- dinary circumstances,’ revocation allowed government show ‘for faith purpose,’ Menefield, 2d, 701; empha- sis deleted). unnecessary present 6 merits approaches determine what establishes quests appointment All requires— empowered §2254(d)(1)—is observe light Amendment’s guarantee process,” 80–81, concurrent promise constitutional proceed [a defendant] so,” 807, said Cali- fornia’s approach contrary unreasonable plication “general standard[s]” assistance-of-counsel 664. Appeals’ rested part mistaken belief circuit precedent may used refine sharpen principle jurisprudence into specific legal announced. Parker Matthews, 567 ___, ___ (2012) ( per curiam) (slip op., 12–13) (“The highly gener- alized standard evaluating claims prosecutorial misconduct set forth Darden [v. Wainwright, 477 168 (1986)] bears scant resemblance elaborate, multistep test employed here”); 1155, 1157. error subtle, yet substantial. Although may, accordance usual law-of-the-circuit procedures, look ascertain al- ready particular issue precedent, see, e.g., Tolliver Sheets, 594 900, 916, n. (CA6 2010) (“We bound determinations established”); Chambers McDaniel, 549 1191, 1199 2008), canvass 7 widely accepted among Circuits would, if presented Court, correct. Parker, 12–13); Renico Lett, 559 766, 778–779 (2010). abide limitation Its resulting hold- erroneous III expresses view under- lying urges. And suggest imply underlying issue, review, would insubstantial. This opinion instead confined determination violation estab- lished determined States.” §2254(d)(1). certiorari forma pauperis granted. reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. ordered.

Category: 1