Court Opinion

ID: 9486995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:05:34.235485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:02.675718
License: Public Domain

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Because I think that the record shows that petitioner’s waiver of counsel was not equivocal but conditional, see, e.g., Adams v. Carroll, 875 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir.1989), I respectfully dissent. Petitioner’s statement that he “was not very serious about wanting to represent himself’ was, in the context, quite plainly his way of saying that that was not his first choice. His first choice was the appointment of other counsel. The same is true of his assertion that he was “not asking to proceed pro se totally.” Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the question of whether petitioner’s assertions were equivocal is a question of fact, I would hold that the state court’s finding was not fairly supported by the record.