Becker v. Martel
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46212
| S.D. Cal. | 2011Background
- Petitioner Joseph Becker, a state prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his California conviction.
- Becker was convicted in 2006 on multiple counts including threats, false bomb reports, witness dissuasion, and stalking, and was sentenced to 20 years and 4 months.
- Direct appeals led to a remand for resentencing due to trial counsel's denial of reinstatement; later resentencings occurred in 2009 and 2010.
- The California Court of Appeal held that Becker had knowingly waived his right to counsel at the initial arraignment, but remanded on the later arraignments for potential issues.
- Becker later challenged the readvisement of his right to counsel at subsequent arraignments after amendments increased penalties; the federal court addressed the scope of AEDPA review and the Faretta waiver issues.
- The district court granted in part and denied in part the habeas petition, concluding the initial waiver was valid but the subsequent readvisement issues required relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Becker’s Faretta waiver valid at the initial arraignment? | Becker did not knowingly waive counsel. | Court properly advised and Becker understood charges, penalties, and risks. | Waiver valid; no relief on this claim. |
| Did the failure to readvise Becker of counsel at the December 21, 2004 arraignment contaminate later proceedings? | Waiver was compromised by a substantial change in circumstances. | Waiver should persist unless explicit request for counsel or substantial change occurred. | Per se prejudicial error; granted relief for readvise issue. |
| Does AEDPA deference apply to the state court’s adjudication of the readvise claim? | State court’s analysis was incorrect under federal law. | State court’s decision was reasonable under AEDPA standards. | Remanded for relief consistent with Faretta error; reversed conviction on that issue. |
| Should there be a certificate of appealability on the Faretta waiver issue? | Petitioner raised a substantial constitutional question. | COA not warranted for this issue. | COA granted for the claim of not knowingly and intelligently waiving counsel at the initial arraignment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (valid Faretta waiver requires knowing, intelligent self-representation)
- United States v. Erskine, 355 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2004) (understanding maximum penalty crucial to Faretta waiver validity)
- United States v. Balough, 820 F.2d 1485 (7th Cir. 1987) (need to understand dangers of self-representation at waiver)
- Frantz v. Hazey, 533 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2008) (per se prejudicial error for Faretta waiver issues; harmless error not applicable)
- United States v. Aponte, 591 F.2d 1247 (9th Cir. 1978) (assimilation of Waiver principles to self-representation)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (clear: 'clearly established' federal law refers to holdings, not dicta)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (U.S. 1991) (look-through approach for state court decisions in AEDPA review)
- Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3 (U.S. 2002) (state courts need not cite Supreme Court precedent if not contradicted)