Dwight Tamplin, Jr. v. William Muniz, 894 F.3d 1076

Tamplin was arrested for being a felon in possession of firearms and faced a Three Strikes sentence; he was ultimately convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life on appeal.
He invoked Faretta and secured pro se status on February 10, 2005; he represented himself for months thereafter.
On June 22, 2005, Tamplin appeared with privately retained Greg Morris (who never filed a substitution motion and was suspended June 24); Tamplin learned Morris could not represent him and on June 30 stated he wished to continue pro se and signed a waiver.
At a July 8 hearing the trial court denied Tamplin’s renewed Faretta request, reappointed the public defender, and continued the trial date; Tamplin objected but did not renew further objections.
Appellate counsel did not raise the Faretta claim on direct appeal; Tamplin later raised it in state habeas, where the Superior Court rejected it as equivocal and/or waived by acquiescence; subsequent state courts denied habeas.
The Ninth Circuit concluded the state court decisions were contrary to Faretta, found appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise the meritorious Faretta claim, and ordered habeas relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tamplin made an unequivocal request to proceed pro se	Tamplin: he had been pro se since Feb 10 and unequivocally reaffirmed pro se status on June 30 and July 8	State: hiring/appearing with Morris showed equivocation or a request for substitute counsel	Held for Tamplin: request was unequivocal and indistinguishable from Faretta
Whether Tamplin waived his Faretta right by acquiescing after the court denied his request	Tamplin: denial was a completed Sixth Amendment violation; subsequent silence did not waive the right	State: failure to renew objection and later acquiescence constituted waiver	Held for Tamplin: acquiescence rule contradicts Faretta; denial was complete when made
Whether the renewed Faretta request was untimely	Tamplin: he continuously represented himself or timely renewed on June 30 (weeks before trial)	State: July 8 request was near trial and untimely; trial court could consider timing	Held for Tamplin: request was timely; Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and found timeliness satisfied
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the Faretta claim on direct appeal	Tamplin: counsel neglected to investigate and failed to raise a clearly meritorious Faretta claim causing prejudice	State: counsel’s decision not to raise the issue was reasonable or harmless	Held for Tamplin: counsel’s omission was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial under Strickland; relief required

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation when defendant makes knowing, voluntary, unequivocal request)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (standby counsel participation does not defeat Faretta right)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA standard: contrary or unreasonable application of clearly established federal law)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference and "fairminded jurists" standard)
Moore v. Calderon, 108 F.3d 261 (9th Cir. 1997) (pre-AEDPA but persuasive Ninth Circuit hold that a Faretta request made two weeks before trial can be timely)