Court Opinion

ID: 2964150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:20.1034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:51.455210
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          July 5, 1996          [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1005

                               ALFRED A. GALLANT, JR.,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               CORRECTIONS, ME WARDEN,
                                 Defendant, Appellee.
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1048

                                ALFRED A. GALLANT, II,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              GENE CARTER, CHIEF JUDGE,
                                 Defendant, Appellee.
                                                     
                                _____________________

        No. 96-1162

                                ALFRED A. GALLANT, II,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               DONALD ALEXANDER, JUDGE,
                                 Defendant, Appellee.
                                                     
                                _____________________

                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                       [Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________
                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________
                                 ____________________

            Alfred  A.  Gallant on  memorandum in  support  of certificate  of
            ___________________
        probable cause and on brief pro se.
            Gail Fisk Malone, Assistant United States Attorney, on  memorandum
            ________________
        in support of motion for summary disposition for appellee Gene Carter.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   In  No. 96-1048, plaintiff  Alfred Gallant
                 __________

            appeals  from a court  order dated December  20, 1995 denying

            his  motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).  As plaintiff
                                   _________________

            paid the filing fee  that same day, his appeal  is frivolous.

            Plaintiff's  motions to  proceed  IFP on  appeal are  denied,
                                                                  ______

            appellee's motion for summary disposition is allowed, and the
                                                         _______

            challenged district  court order is summarily  affirmed.  See
                                                           ________   ___

            Loc. R. 27.1.

                 In  No.  96-1162,  plaintiff  appeals  from  a  judgment

            dismissing, on the ground  of frivolousness, his action under

            42 U.S.C.   1983  against the state court judge  who presided

            over his state  habeas proceedings.  For  the reasons recited

            by  the district court in  its order dated  February 7, 1996,

            the  judgment  is summarily  affirmed.    See Loc.  R.  27.1.
                                         _________    ___

            Plaintiff's  motions  to  proceed   IFP  on  appeal  and  for

            appointment of counsel are denied.  
                                       ______

                 In  No.  96-1005,  plaintiff  seeks  a  certificate   of

            probable   cause in order to appeal from the district court's

            denial  of his petition for a writ  of habeas corpus.  Having

            reviewed the record in full, we discern only one issue of any

            conceivable  merit: whether  plaintiff was  improperly denied

            his   Sixth  Amendment  right  of  self-representation  under

            Faretta  v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).  The trial court
            _______     __________

            rejected this claim on the ground that plaintiff's request to

            proceed pro se had not been "intelligently" made; it noted in
                    ______

                                         -3-

            this  regard  that   plaintiff  was  suffering  from   mental

            impairments  and had  disavowed any  intention of  mounting a

            defense  in order to "protest"  what he regarded  as a "sham"

            trial.  The  Maine Supreme Judicial  Court (SJC) affirmed  on

            the   ground  that   plaintiff's   request   had   not   been

            "unequivocally"  advanced.   See State  v. Gallant,  595 A.2d
                                         ___ _____     _______

            413,  416 (Me.  1991).   As  we find  that the  trial court's

            rationale is immune from challenge in a federal habeas corpus

            proceeding,  we need not address the grounds relied on by the

            SJC. 

                 A review of the record makes clear that the trial court,

            although deeming plaintiff mentally competent to stand trial,

            considered  him  mentally   incompetent  to  defend   himself

            effectively.  Such  a determination runs afoul  of Godinez v.
                                                               _______

            Moran, 509 U.S.  389 (1993),  where the Court  held that  the
            _____

            competency  standard  for waiving  the  right  to counsel  is

            identical  to  that  for  standing trial.    Yet  plaintiff's

            conviction and sentence had become final prior to issuance of

            the Godinez decision.  And the  Godinez holding, we conclude,
                _______                     _______

            constitutes a "new rule" that, under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S.
                                                 ______    ____

            288  (1989), cannot  be  applied retroactively  by a  federal

            habeas court. 

                 "[A] case announces  a new  rule if the  result was  not

            dictated by  precedent existing  at the time  the defendant's
            ________

            conviction became final."  Caspari v. Bohlen, 114 S. Ct. 948,
                                       _______    ______

                                         -4-

            953  (1994) (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 301).  "The question
                                 ______

            is 'whether a state court considering [the defendant's] claim

            at  the time  his  conviction became  final  would have  felt

            compelled  by existing  precedent to  conclude that  the rule

            [he]  seeks was  required by  the Constitution.'"   Goeke  v.
                                                                _____

            Branch, 115  S. Ct. 1275,  1277 (1995) (per  curiam) (quoting
            ______

            Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 488 (1990)).  
            ______    _____

                 Here, we cannot say that the state court would have felt

            compelled,  prior  to Godinez,  to  deem  the two  competency
                                  _______

            standards  equivalent.    The  Godinez  Court  itself,  after
                                           _______

            surveying  the caselaw, took note of the divergent views that

            then prevailed.   See 509 U.S. at 395 n.5.   And this circuit
                              ___

            was one  of the ones there identified as adhering to the view

            that  the two  competency standards  might not  be identical.

            See  United States v. Campbell,  874 F.2d 838,  846 (1st Cir.
            ___  _____________    ________

            1989) (observing that "the competency required to stand trial

            may not always be coterminous with the  capacity necessary to

            proceed pro se") (quoted in part in Godinez, 509 U.S. at  395
                    ______                      _______

            n.5); see also  United States  v. Pryor, 960  F.2d 1, 2  (1st
                  ________  _____________     _____

            Cir. 1992) (finding of competency to waive counsel "more than

            covered" competency to stand trial). 

                 In turn, neither  of the "two  narrow exceptions to  the

            nonretroactivity  principle" applies here.   Caspari,  114 S.
                                                         _______

            Ct.  at 956.   The  first pertains  to  new rules  that place

            certain types  of private  conduct "beyond  the power of  the

                                         -5-

            criminal law-making authority to proscribe," Teague, 489 U.S.
                                                         ______

            at 307 (internal quotation  omitted); this is inapplicable on

            its  face.    The  second pertains  to  "watershed  rules  of

            criminal procedure implicating  the fundamental fairness  and

            accuracy of the criminal proceeding."  Caspari, 114 S. Ct. at
                                                   _______

            956 (internal quotations omitted).  It is not certain whether

            Faretta itself  would fit  into this  second category.1   But
                                                                  1
            _______

            however this may be,  it is apparent to  us that the  Godinez
                                                                  _______

            decision,  which simply  fine-tunes  the competency  standard

            underlying   Faretta,   is   not   "such   a   groundbreaking
                         _______

            occurrence,"  Caspari, 114 S. Ct.  at 956, as  to trigger the
                          _______

            second Teague exception.
                   ______

                 We have considered plaintiff's remaining allegations and

            find  them  even less  availing.    Accordingly, inasmuch  as

            plaintiff has  failed to make  a "substantial showing  of the

            denial of  a federal  right," Barefoot  v. Estelle, 463  U.S.
                                          ________     _______

            880,  893  (1983),  the  application  for  a  certificate  of

            probable cause is denied  and the appeal is terminated.   The
                              ______                    __________

            motions  to  proceed on  appeal  IFP and  for  appointment of

                                
            ____________________

               1   The Sixth Amendment right  to self-representation, for
               1
            all  its importance  in upholding  "the inestimable  worth of
            free  choice,"  Faretta, 422  U.S.  at  834, is  plainly  not
                            _______
            designed  to enhance  the  reliability  of the  truth-finding
            process;  as  the  Faretta  Court noted,  "in  most  criminal
                               _______
            prosecutions  defendants could  better defend  with counsel's
            guidance than by  their own unskilled efforts,"  id.  Indeed,
                                                             ___
            various  courts declined  to give  retroactive effect  to the
            Faretta  decision itself  primarily  for this  reason.   See,
            _______                                                  ___
            e.g.,  Martin v.  Wyrick, 568  F.2d  583, 587-88  (8th Cir.),
            ____   ______     ______
            cert. denied, 435 U.S. 975 (1978). 
            ____________

                                         -6-

            counsel  are denied.   The  motion for  recusal is  denied as
                         ______                                 ______

            moot.

                                         -7-