Benjamin Wright v. Sandy McCain, Warden, 703 F. App'x 281

Benjamin F. Wright, a Louisiana inmate, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging convictions on 23 counts of possession of child pornography and a 40-year aggregate sentence.
Wright claimed, among other things, that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation by refusing his requests to proceed pro se and by appointing counsel against his wishes.
At a September 30, 2005 hearing (Cause No. 69,945) Wright stated he intended to “defend [his] own self in [his] other cases,” and the court said the pro se request would be addressed later; the docket for the challenged convictions (Cause No. 69,946) did not reflect a full Faretta hearing.
At a June 26, 2006 hearing the trial judge denied Wright’s renewed request to proceed pro se, stating he would not allow Wright to represent himself and appointed counsel despite Wright’s objections.
The state habeas court denied Wright’s postconviction claim; the federal district court granted conditional habeas relief under § 2254(d)(2) for the Faretta violation and the State obtained a stay pending appeal.
The Fifth Circuit consolidated Wright’s appeals, affirmed the district court’s grant of habeas relief (finding an unreasonable factual determination by the state court), and affirmed denial of Wright’s Rule 60(b) challenge to the stay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wright invoked and was denied his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation	Wright contends he clearly and unequivocally invoked his right to proceed pro se and the trial court refused without a proper Faretta colloquy	State contends (1) the request applied only to a different docket and (2) Wright acquiesced to appointed counsel	Court: Wright clearly invoked Faretta; trial court’s denial without adequate colloquy was unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2); habeas relief affirmed
Whether Wright abandoned his request by not renewing it at trial	Wright argues failure to renew was futile given judge’s refusal; conduct does not show abandonment	State argues continued representation by counsel indicates acquiescence	Court: Under these facts, failure to renew did not show abandonment; judge’s statements made renewals futile
Whether appointment of standby counsel cures violation	Wright: No standby counsel was appointed; actual appointment deprived him of right	State: A court may appoint standby counsel without violating Faretta	Court: Irrelevant here because counsel was not mere standby; actual appointment without Faretta hearing violated Sixth Amendment
Whether the Faretta violation is subject to harmless-error review	Wright: Not applicable; error invalidates conviction	State: Error had no impact on verdict; harmless	Court: Right to self-representation error is not subject to harmless-error analysis and invalidates conviction

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (establishes Sixth Amendment right to self-representation and requirement of knowing, intelligent waiver)
Burton v. Collins, 937 F.2d 131 (5th Cir. 1991) (discusses right to proceed pro se under Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments)
Brumfield v. Cain, 135 S. Ct. 2269 (2015) (directs looking through to last reasoned state court decision in habeas review)
Batchelor v. Cain, 682 F.3d 400 (5th Cir. 2012) (addressing abandonment of Faretta request and related standards)
United States v. Long, 597 F.3d 720 (5th Cir. 2010) (discusses waiver/abandonment of self-representation right)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (holding certain constitutional errors are not subject to harmless-error analysis and invalidate convictions)
United States v. Weast, 811 F.3d 743 (5th Cir. 2016) (addresses harmless-error in context of constitutional trial errors)