Wellmon v. CDOC, 952 F.3d 1242

Wellmon was charged with attempted first-degree murder, assault, menacing, and witness tampering after a hotel-room assault; he was convicted after choosing to represent himself at trial and received a 70-year sentence.
The trial court initially appointed the Colorado State Public Defender; Wellmon repeatedly sought new counsel, retained and lost advisory counsel, and at times waived counsel on the record.
A conflict emerged because the public defenders office also represented Danny Padilla (a potential witness/impeachment source); prosecutors agreed not to call Padilla and offered immunity if defense called him; the trial court also offered to sever witness-tampering counts.
The trial court found Wellmons waiver of counsel knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and denied his late pretrial request to reappoint counsel; at trial Wellmon did not meaningfully participate and was convicted.
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the waiver ruling (conflict was ameliorated by no-call and severance options); the district court denied habeas relief; the Tenth Circuit affirmed under AEDPA, finding the state courts decisions reasonable.

Issue	Wellmon's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Wellmon validly waived his Faretta right given a conflict of interest (PD also represented Padilla)	Waiver invalid because PD had confidential information about both Wellmon and Padilla; conflict impaired counsels ability to investigate/impeach Allen	No actual conflict at trial: parties agreed not to call Padilla and court could sever tampering counts, extinguishing the conflict	Waiver valid; CCA reasonably concluded the conflict was ameliorated by the no-call agreement and severance option; Tenth Circuit affirmed under AEDPA
Whether the trial court unreasonably denied Wellmons pretrial motion to retract his Faretta waiver (requested well before trial without need for continuance)	Court should have allowed reappointment of counsel pretrial where no continuance was needed; denying it forced him to self-represent at trial	No clearly established Supreme Court law requires permitting pretrial retraction without prejudice; AEDPA bars habeas relief absent such clearly established rule	Denial not a basis for habeas relief: there is no closely analogous Supreme Court holding making Colorados approach contrary or unreasonable under AEDPA; claim fails

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognizes the right to proceed pro se and requires a valid waiver)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (recognizes the right to appointed counsel for indigent felony defendants)
Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (conflicts in joint representation can require reversal where the conflict adversely affects representation)
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (defines an "actual conflict" as one that adversely affects counsel's performance)
Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34 (AEDPA review focuses on what the state court knew and decided when it rendered its judgment)
Marshall v. Rodgers, 569 U.S. 58 (Supreme Court has not clearly addressed post-waiver reassertion-of-counsel rules; general principles do not equal "clearly established" law)
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (clarifies limits on using circuit precedent to define "clearly established" Supreme Court law)
Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (Sixth Amendment guarantees conflict-free counsel)