Ray Miller v. Rick Thaler, Director, 714 F.3d 897

Miller was indicted for intoxicated manslaughter with a vehicle in March 2007 in Texas.
On the eve of jury selection, the State offered a plea of 16 years; Miller’s counsel relayed terms and urged acceptance, while Miller insisted on a 12-year counteroffer.
The communication regarding the finality of the 16-year offer is disputed: Miller says the response to his counteroffer was delayed; Scammahorn says he conveyed Miller’s directives and that the offer was withdrawn after Miller ultimately accepted.
Miller moved to proceed pro se; the trial court conducted an extensive inquiry but denied the request, citing lack of qualified self-representation and continued representation by counsel.
A plea agreement was later reached: Miller pled guilty, waived certain rights, and received a 35-year recommended sentence with dismissal of another indictment; Miller admitted two prior felonies, triggering a 25-to-life range as habitual offender.
Miller pursued state habeas relief alleging ineffective assistance regarding the lapsed plea offer and denial of self-representation; the state habeas court made factual findings favorable to counsel and denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance over lapse of plea offer	Miller contends counsel failed to relay the final status of the 16-year offer, effectively causing lapse denial of a plea.	Scammahorn maintained he informed Miller of the 16-year offer and Miller’s 12-year counteroffer; no failure to convey offers occurred.	No relief; state court factual findings are entitled to AEDPA deference; Frye distinguished and not controlling; no showing of deficient performance or prejudice.
Right to self-representation denied	Miller argues the court violated Faretta by denying his request to represent himself.	State habeas court found, and the record supports, that Miller was equivocal and not unequivocally waiving counsel; inquiry supported.	No relief; state court findings entitled to deference; no clear, knowing waiver established.
Ineffective assistance regarding self-representation grounds	Scammahorn’s alleged failure to withdraw and his purported conflict of interest breached Miller’s rights.	Court relied on same deference to state court findings that Scammahorn advocated effectively and Miller equivocated.	No relief; state court findings supported that no actual conflict or withdrawal failure occurred; deference applied.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to plea negotiations)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing, unequivocal waiver)
Brown v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607 (5th Cir. 1982) (procedural safeguards for self-representation waiver)
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., 528 U.S. 152 (2000) (Faretta efficiency and timeliness considerations in waivers)
Batchelor v. Cain, 682 F.3d 400 (5th Cir. 2012) (AEDPA deferential review of state-court factual findings)
Richards v. Quarterman, 566 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2009) (AEDPA deference to state court determinations)
Henderson v. Cockrell, 333 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2003) (deferring to state-court adjudications in habeas review)
Pinholster v. Warren, 131 S. Ct. 1398 (2011) (AEDPA review standards and record limitations)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (highly deferential review under AEDPA)
Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524 (5th Cir. 1990) (counsel not required to file futile motions)