Joel Rhodes v. Michael Dittmann
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6002
7th Cir.2015Background
- Joel Rhodes was charged with kidnapping and aggravated battery; after prior proceedings he was allowed to proceed pro se following a Faretta colloquy on April 6, 2007.
- Trial was scheduled to begin May 7, 2007; between April 18 and May 6 Rhodes and former counsel Peter Kovac sent letters and requests indicating Rhodes wanted Kovac to represent him but Kovac stated he was not prepared to try the case on short notice.
- On the morning of trial Rhodes renewed his request for counsel and for an adjournment; the trial judge denied the adjournment and refused to allow Kovac to represent Rhodes or to act as standby counsel, citing untimeliness and suspected gamesmanship.
- A jury convicted Rhodes on both counts; the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the Faretta waiver valid and that the trial court permissibly denied the late request for counsel due to timing and manipulative tactics.
- Rhodes sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court granted the writ, concluding the state court unreasonably found gamesmanship and thereby deprived Rhodes of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding the state court’s untimeliness rationale was a reasonable and independent ground sufficient under AEDPA to deny relief.
Issues
| Issue | Rhodes' Argument | Dittman/Wisconsin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Rhodes' Faretta waiver | Waiver was invalid; he later revoked it | Waiver was knowing and voluntary after colloquy | Faretta waiver was valid; state court’s finding upheld |
| Denial of last-minute request to reinstate counsel (and adjourn trial) | Rhodes earnestly sought Kovac because he could not adequately self-represent; denial violated Sixth Amendment | Request was untimely on eve of trial and would prejudice court administration; judge reasonably suspected gamesmanship | Denial was reasonable under state law for timeliness and abuse-of-process concerns; upheld |
| State court’s factual finding of gamesmanship | Rhodes: letters/requests were consistent and sincere, not manipulative | State courts: Rhodes made mutually exclusive requests and had equivocal conduct; Kovac unprepared | Federal district court erred to overturn that factual finding; even if gamesmanship finding doubtful, untimeliness alone suffices |
| Standard of federal habeas review under AEDPA | District court should evaluate whether state ruling violated federal law | AEDPA requires deference; federal court must accept reasonable state-court grounds and presumption of correct state factual findings | Seventh Circuit reversed: AEDPA precludes relief because state court’s independent, reasonable untimeliness ground supports the conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant has right to self-representation when waiver of counsel is knowing and voluntary)
- Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) (trial management and disruption concerns justify restrictions on requests affecting counsel)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (federal habeas review of state-court decisions is highly deferential under AEDPA)
- United States v. Tolliver, 937 F.2d 1183 (7th Cir. 1991) (trial court may deny last-minute continuance to obtain counsel due to disruption to court administration)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (federal courts cannot review adequate and independent state-law grounds supporting a judgment)