Opinion ID: 50593
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wood's Faretta Claim

Text: 24 Under the principles announced by the Supreme Court in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835-36, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), a competent criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to represent himself at trial if he waives his right to counsel, and a trial court cannot deny the defendant's motion to proceed pro se on the ground that the defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or understanding of the law. The Faretta right is not, however, without limitation. The exercise of the right to self-representation is contingent on the defendant's knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to be represented by counsel. See id. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525. 5 The Faretta court also noted that a court may terminate the right to self-representation where the defendant fails to abide by courtroom rules and/or engages in obstructionist conduct. Id. at 834 & n. 46, 95 S.Ct. 2525. Moreover, a trial court can appoint stand-by counsel to assist the defendant (even over the defendant's objection), so long as stand-by counsel does not unduly impinge on the defendant's self-representation. Id. at 834 n. 46, 95 S.Ct. 2525; McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 174-79, 104 S.Ct. 944. Finally, a trial court need not permit a defendant to proceed pro se where the defendant's motion to do so is untimely. See, e.g., Martinez v. Court of Appeal, 528 U.S. 152, 162, 120 S.Ct. 684, 145 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (noting that most courts require defendant to assert right to self-representation in a timely manner). 25 In this case, the state habeas court provided two reasons for its denial of Wood's Faretta claim: (1) that the trial court had accumulated knowledge of [Wood's] circumstances and was in an adequate position to make and [sic] meaningful determination of the issue; and (2) that Wood's motion to proceed pro se was untimely. The federal district court held that, although the trial court and the state habeas court applied an incorrect substantive legal standard when considering Wood's motion to represent himself, the decision to deny the motion was not an unreasonable application of federal law. The district court did not reach the state habeas court's additional finding that Wood's motion was untimely. Because we hold that the state habeas court did not unreasonably apply federal law when it held that Wood's motion was untimely, we do not reach its decision on the substance of Wood's claim. 26 As noted above, courts have discretion about whether to grant a defendant's motion to proceed pro se when the motion is untimely. See, e.g., Martinez, 528 U.S. at 162, 120 S.Ct. 684; United States v. Davis, 269 F.3d 514, 520 (5th Cir.2001) (The district court was not obliged to honor Davis's mid-trial request to represent himself.) (citing Moreno v. Estelle, 717 F.2d 171, 176 (5th Cir.1983)); see also Haynes v. Cain, 298 F.3d 375, 384 (5th Cir.2002) (en banc) (Dennis, J., concurring). In this case, Wood did not move to proceed pro se until after the jury had already returned a guilty verdict against him, immediately before the sentencing phase of his trial, and the trial court therefore had the discretion to deny the motion. Although the trial court did not base its decision on the untimeliness of Wood's motion, 6 the last reasoned state court decision — the decision of the state habeas court — did. Because no decision of the Supreme Court obligates state courts to permit self-representation when the defendant fails to invoke his Faretta right in a timely manner, we are compelled to find that the state habeas court's holding that Wood was not entitled to relief because his motion was untimely was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, federal law. See Marshall v. Taylor, 395 F.3d 1058, 1060-62 (9th Cir.) (rejecting Faretta claim where trial court denied motion for self-representation for impermissible reason, but state appellate court found that motion was untimely), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 860, 126 S.Ct. 139, 163 L.Ed.2d 140 (2005).