Gerald Werth v. Thomas Bell
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18172
6th Cir.2012Background
- Werth was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny and possession of burglar’s tools in Flint, Michigan.
- He repeatedly sought to proceed pro se under Faretta; the trial court denied each request, including the final explicit denial after a substantial discussion.
- Werth later pleaded guilty to both counts under a plea agreement that treated him as habitual offender two, reducing potential sentences.
- He moved to withdraw the guilty plea claiming it was the product of coercion worsened by denial of self-representation; the court denied.
- Werth sought habeas relief arguing the denial of self-representation violated his Sixth Amendment rights; the district court denied relief, applying AEDPA deferential review.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that a guilty plea forecloses Faretta challenges and that the state-court denials were entitled to AEDPA deference under Harrington v. Richter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AEDPA deference applies to Michigan denials of Leave to Appeal. | Werth argues de novo review should apply because the Michigan orders were not merits determinations. | Werth's denials were on the merits, and Harrington requires AEDPA deference. | AEDPA deference applies; presumptively on the merits. |
| Whether a guilty plea bars a Faretta challenge to self-representation. | A wrongfully denied Faretta claim can be raised post-plea if the plea was involuntary. | Tollett bars non-jurisdictional attacks after an unconditional guilty plea; Faretta issue is not preserved. | Guilty plea waives Faretta claim; plea forecloses the Faretta challenge. |
| Whether the Lefkowitz exception allows post-plea review of self-representation rights under state law. | State law could permit appeal on Faretta issues after a guilty plea. | Lefkowitz is limited to state-law contexts; not applicable here. | Lefkowitz does not save the claim; no AEDPA-exception applies. |
| Whether any ongoing violation defeats the Tollett waiver analysis. | Denial of self-representation was ongoing and tainted the plea. | Violation occurred before the plea and does not invalidate the break in the chain; Tollett controls. | Ongoing effects do not defeat Tollett’s break-in-the-chain analysis; plea-valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea effectuates a waiver of pre-plea claims; focus on voluntariness of plea.)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA deference applies to unexplained state-court denials; standard for relief.)
- Maples v. Stegall, 340 F.3d 433 (2003) (de novo review when state court did not adjudicate merits.)
- Dorn v. Lafler, 601 F.3d 439 (2010) ( precedente on whether unexplained denials are merits decisions; superseded by Harrington.)
- Hernandez v. United States, 203 F.3d 614 (2000) (guilty plea involuntary when defendant deprived of right to self-representation; debated by circuits.)