Wise v. Hansen, 20-1172

Wise was charged in Colorado with attempted first‑degree murder, first‑degree burglary, second‑degree assault, and a crime‑of‑violence enhancement; he sought several times to waive counsel and proceed pro se.
Competency was contested: an initial psychologist found Wise competent; counsel requested a competency hearing and an independent evaluation followed, which agreed with the first report.
Wise’s pro se requests to proceed without counsel occurred while competency was actively in question; after the second evaluation he did not renew his Faretta request and proceeded to trial with appointed alternate defense counsel (ADC).
Wise was convicted on all counts, received an aggregate 40‑year sentence, and exhausted state appeals and post‑conviction relief without success.
In federal habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Wise raised five claims (self‑representation; two ineffective assistance claims at trial; two ineffective assistance claims on appeal); he pressed only the Faretta claim and one Strickland claim as to ADC’s use of a defense‑of‑property instruction.
The district court denied habeas relief and a certificate of appealability (COA); the Tenth Circuit denied a COA and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Wise's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court violated Wise’s Sixth Amendment right to self‑representation by refusing his pro se requests	Wise: trial court erred by not allowing him to discharge counsel and proceed pro se after repeated unequivocal requests	State: waiver requests occurred while competency was unresolved; a defendant must be competent to waive counsel	Court: No COA—state court reasonably applied Faretta; requests were made while competency was at issue, so denial was permissible
Whether ADC provided ineffective assistance by tendering a defense‑of‑property instruction that conflicted with Wise’s testimony	Wise: instruction undermined his sworn accident theory and deprived him of meaningful defense	State: Wise’s testimony allowed the jury to find either an accidental shooting or defense‑of‑property, so instruction could have produced acquittal; Strickland not violated	Court: No COA—state court’s rejection of Strickland claim was not an unreasonable application of federal law
Whether habeas relief or a COA is warranted given AEDPA deference and COA standards	Wise: the district court’s resolutions were debatable and contrary to clearly established law	State: AEDPA requires deference; petitioner must show state decision was unreasonable or debatable under Slack/Miller‑El	Court: No COA—petitioner failed to show the district court’s rulings were debatable or unreasonable

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant has Sixth Amendment right to self‑representation subject to competency requirement)
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) (competency required to waive counsel or plead guilty)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (2007) (AEDPA requires deference; federal court asks whether state decision was unreasonable)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (relief requires state decision to be beyond fairminded disagreement)
Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA requires showing the district court’s resolution was debatable)
Dockins v. Hines, 374 F.3d 935 (10th Cir. 2004) (AEDPA deference applies to COA consideration)
Munkus v. Furlong, 170 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 1999) (Faretta right is not absolute; competence is prerequisite)