83 F.4th 1141
9th Cir.2023Background
- Clark was convicted (1982) of six first-degree murders and sentenced to death; California Supreme Court affirmed convictions and sentence on direct appeal.
- Clark filed a pro se 1992 document requesting appointment of counsel (not signed under penalty of perjury) but did not seek merits relief; appointed counsel later filed the operative federal habeas petition in 1997.
- District court applied AEDPA, denied habeas relief on claims that the trial court violated Clark’s Faretta (self-representation) and Marsden (substitute counsel) rights, and granted a certificate of appealability on those issues.
- Clark’s Faretta-related arguments included pretrial requests to proceed pro se (July and August 1982), on-the-eve-of-trial timeliness, and revocation of pro per status during trial after disruptive conduct (including a “stand mute” threat).
- Clark’s Marsden claim alleged an irreconcilable conflict with lead counsel warranting substitution; he did not identify specific ineffective-assistance acts or develop new facts in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Clark's Argument | Broomfield's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AEDPA applicability: Was Clark’s Oct. 1992 pro se filing an “actual application” so AEDPA would not apply? | 1992 filing started a pending habeas application predating AEDPA. | 1992 document sought only counsel/stay and was not a verified §2254 application; AEDPA applies to the 1997 operative petition. | Court held the 1992 filing was not an "actual application" under Garceau; AEDPA applies. |
| Faretta — pretrial equivocal/hybrid requests (July 1982) | Clark asserted he unequivocally sought to represent himself. | Requests were emotional/outburst-driven, sought to dismiss one of multiple attorneys (hybrid), and were equivocal. | Court held the July statements were equivocal/hybrid; no Faretta violation. |
| Faretta — timeliness / on‑eve‑of‑trial (August 1982) | Clark contended his August request was timely. | Trial was firmly set; request was effectively on the eve of trial and equivocal; CA court reasonably applied state rule. | Court held no clearly established Supreme Court rule on precise timing; state court reasonably found the request untimely/equivocal. |
| Marsden — substitute counsel / irreconcilable conflict | Clark argued conflict with lead counsel required an evidentiary hearing and substitution. | Clark identified no acts of ineffectiveness, created much of the conflict himself, and no complete breakdown in communication was shown. | Court held no Sixth Amendment violation; denial of substitution reasonable under AEDPA; evidentiary hearing barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognizes Sixth Amendment right to self-representation)
- Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202 (pre-application filings do not constitute an "actual application" for habeas)
- Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (AEDPA applies to petitions not pending before its effective date)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (standards for §2254(d) review)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state-court merits decisions on habeas)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (no right to "hybrid" representation; judge may terminate pro per for misconduct)
- White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415 (§2254(d)(1) requires objective unreasonableness)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (federal habeas review generally limited to state-court record)
- Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017 (discusses Marsden / irreconcilable conflict framework)