Richard Bilauski v. Troy Steele
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10455
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Bilauski violently assaulted Vessell and struck Rose during a 2001 incident; Vessell died from the blows.
- He was charged with second-degree murder, second-degree assault, and two armed criminal action counts, and was appointed counsel.
- Prior to trial, Bilauski filed multiple pro se motions seeking new counsel or to waive counsel; no hearings or rulings followed.
- At trial, Bilauski was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, and two armed-criminal-action counts; direct appeal was represented by different counsel.
- Post-conviction, Bilauski claimed ineffective assistance of direct-appeal counsel for failing to raise Faretta self-representation, which the Missouri courts denied; the district court granted a conditional writ but the state appealed.
- The district court’s AEDPA review applied the standard for unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and unreasonable determination of fact; the court of appeals affirmed that no relief was due.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Missouri court’s Strickland ruling unreasonable? | Bilauski argues appellate prejudice showed Faretta claim would succeed. | State argues no prejudice; Faretta claim failed for lack of clear invocation. | No; Missouri court unreasonably applied Strickland was not shown; no relief. |
| Did Bilauski clearly invoke the right to self-representation? | Bilauski asserts he unequivocally asserted self-representation. | State contends the record shows only dissatisfaction with counsel, not a clear waiver. | Not clearly and unequivocally invoked; Faretta claim would not have succeeded. |
| Did the AEDPA review support denial of habeas relief? | District court erred in granting relief by misapplying AEDPA standards. | State contends Missouri court reasonably applied Strickland and determined lack of prejudice. | No relief; state court’s decision not unreasonable under AEDPA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires a clear and unequivocal assertion of the right)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance requires deficient performance and prejudice)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (unreasonable application if state court misapplies law to facts)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. 2011) ( AEDPA: fairminded disagreement possible on state-court reasoning)
- Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2006) (AEDPA: not to overturn if reasonable inferences support state court's fact-finding)