State v. Barnes, 774 S.E.2d 454

Background

Respondent's first capital conviction and death sentence were reversed by the South Carolina Supreme Court because the trial court applied the heightened competency standard from Indiana v. Edwards when denying his request to represent himself; the Court held Faretta governed. (State v. Barnes.)
The Court reversed and remanded for a new trial; the remittitur was returned to the circuit court and the State elected to retry Respondent and again seek the death penalty.
At pretrial for the retrial, Respondent requested appointment of counsel; the State argued that request amounted to conceding the first trial was valid and asked the Court to reinstate the original conviction and decide issues not reached in Barnes.
The circuit court denied the State’s request to recall the remittitur or reinstate the prior judgment; the State sought certiorari review from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered whether it could or should revisit Barnes because Respondent now requests counsel for the retrial and concluded it could not recall the remittitur on that basis and affirmed the circuit court.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether the Court should reconsider Barnes or reinstate the prior conviction because Respondent seeks counsel for retrial	Requesting counsel at retrial concedes no constitutional infirmity in first trial; remand the case, reinstate conviction, and decide unresolved appellate issues	Requesting counsel for retrial does not waive or estop Respondent from asserting Faretta error on appeal; he is entitled to a new trial with full rights	Court refused to recall remittitur or reinstate conviction; affirmed circuit court — Barnes stands and Respondent is entitled to a new trial with full constitutional rights
Whether post-remittitur conduct by a party can justify recalling the remittitur	Post-remittitur conduct (seeking counsel) justifies recalling remittitur and reopening decision	Remittitur may only be recalled for court error or inadvertence, not party conduct	Court: no authority supports recalling remittitur for party conduct; remittitur cannot be recalled on that basis
Whether a defendant who wins reversal for Faretta error is estopped from later seeking counsel at retrial	Defendant is effectively estopped or has waived right to counsel by obtaining reversal based on right to self-representation	Precedent rejects permanent estoppel; defendant may later choose counsel at retrial	Court: precedent supports that a defendant is not forever precluded from requesting counsel; choosing counsel at retrial does not reinstate prior conviction
Whether the State can inject prejudice analysis into structural Faretta error by pointing to subsequent conduct	State argues respondent’s later conduct shows no real injury and warrants reinstatement	Structural error (denial of self-representation) is not subject to harmless-error or prejudice analysis	Court: Faretta/structural-error doctrine controls; prejudice irrelevant; defendant’s later choice does not nullify earlier constitutional violation

Key Cases Cited

State v. Barnes, 407 S.C. 27 (S.C. 2014) (reversing conviction because trial court applied Edwards competency standard rather than Faretta)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant has right to self-representation)
Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (permitting heightened competency standard to deny pro se request in limited circumstances)
United States v. Johnson, 223 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2000) (discussing waiver/acquiescence to denial of self-representation; contains dictum on persistence of Faretta claim)
United States v. McKinley, 58 F.3d 1475 (10th Cir. 1995) (rejection of permanent estoppel to request counsel after prior pro se waiver)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (core of right to self-representation and limits on standby counsel)
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (right to counsel is structural error; prejudice irrelevant)
People v. Carson, 35 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2005) (directed new hearing on Faretta claim; if denial found, judgment to be reversed)