Burton v. Davis

Petitioner, sentenced to death for robbery and murder, seeks habeas corpus relief based on the California Supreme Court’s rejection of his claim of self-representation pursuant to Faretta v. California. The district court granted relief to petitioner and the State appealed. Because petitioner filed his federal habeas corpus petition before the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's effective date, the court applied the former version of 28 U.S.C. 2254 and pre-AEDPA law. The court concluded that the trial court’s repeated denials of petitioner's Faretta requests and the California Supreme Court’s decision affirming those denials were contrary to the court's decisions in Fritz v. Spalding and Armant v. Marquez. In this case, it was appropriate for the district court to determine the timeliness of petitioner's Faretta motions in the first instance because neither court made any finding that petitioner's requests were a mere delay tactic. The court further concluded that the district court did not have to refer to the California Supreme Court's finding because the California postconviction proceedings did not ask whether petitioner intended to delay, only whether petitioner's attorney thought that was petitioner's intent. The court agreed with petitioner that the district court was not required to presume that his requests were a mere delay tactic because, under section 2254(d)(1), the merits of that factual dispute were not resolved in the state postconviction hearing and, under section 2254(d)(2) and (d)(6), he was denied a full, fair, and adequate state court hearing on the issue. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that petitioner’s Faretta requests were made for legitimate, not purely dilatory, reasons. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Burton v. Davis" on Justia Law