Hill v. Curtin
Decision Date | 09 July 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 12–2528.,12–2528. |
Citation | 792 F.3d 670 |
Parties | Thomas HILL, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Cindi S. CURTIN, Warden, Respondent–Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED:Daniel S. Volchok, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Aaron D. Lindstrom, Office of the Michigan Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Daniel S. Volchok, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.Aaron D. Lindstrom, John S. Pallas, Office of the Michigan Attorney General, Lansing, Michigan, for Appellee. Naveen Ramachandrappa, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, Benjamin W. Snyder, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; BOGGS, BATCHELDER, MOORE, CLAY, GIBBONS, ROGERS, SUTTON, COOK, McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, WHITE, STRANCH, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
DONALD, J. (pp. 681–700), delivered a separate dissenting opinion in which COLE, C.J., MOORE, CLAY, WHITE, and STRANCH, JJ., joined.
OPINION
Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Pub.L. No. 104–132, 110 Stat. 1214, effective April 24, 1996. All habeas corpus actions filed thereafter, such as the present petition, are governed by AEDPA's considerable restrictions on federal court review of state court judgments. In this case, the district court ruled that the limitations of AEDPA compelled the denial of the habeas petition. We agree and therefore affirm.
On the first day of Thomas Hill's criminal trial, as potential jurors were “on their way up to the courtroom,” Hill informed the Wayne County (Michigan) Circuit Court that he wanted to represent himself. The state trial judge denied the request as follows:
On September 11, 2007, a jury convicted Hill of armed robbery, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529, and carjacking, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529a(1). People v. Hill, 282 Mich.App. 538, 766 N.W.2d 17, 21 (2009). As a third-felony habitual offender, Mich. Comp. Laws § 769.11, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of twenty to forty years for each conviction. See Hill, 766 N.W.2d at 21.
On direct appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Hill's convictions and sentences. Id. at 27. Regarding self-representation, it held that although the lower court failed to comply with People v. Anderson, 398 Mich. 361, 247 N.W.2d 857 (1976) ( ), the record did not support that Hill's request was knowingly and intelligently made. Hill, 766 N.W.2d at 27. In the last reasoned state court decision on the issue, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds. It held that Hill's right to self-representation was not violated because his request was untimely and disruptive. People v. Hill, 485 Mich. 912, 773 N.W.2d 257, 257 (2009). Specifically, it stated:
[T]he ruling of the Wayne Circuit Court denying the request for self-representation “at this time” did not deny the defendant his constitutional right to self-representation where the defendant's request was not timely and granting the request at that moment would have disrupted, unduly inconvenienced, and burdened the administration of the court's business. The trial court also did not foreclose the defendant's opportunity to raise the self-representation issue again after jury selection. The record reflects, however, that the defendant never renewed his untimely request. For this reason, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the defendant's constitutional right to self-representation was not violated.
Id. (citation omitted). The U.S. Supreme Court denied Hill's petition for certiorari. Hill v. Michigan, 559 U.S. 1014, 130 S.Ct. 1899, 176 L.Ed.2d 378 (2010).
Shortly thereafter, Hill filed a timely habeas corpus petition. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the district court deny the petition because “[n]o United States Supreme Court case has directly addressed the timing of a request for self representation,” and, in light of clearly established law, the Michigan Supreme Court's application was not unreasonable. The district court adopted the report over Hill's objection, denied the petition, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
On appeal, we granted Hill a certificate of appealability on the sole issue of whether his right to self-representation had been violated. A panel of this court subsequently issued an unpublished order reversing the district court and granting the writ. Hill v. Curtin, No. 12–2528, 2013 WL 8446602 (6th Cir. Dec. 23, 2013). Thereafter, we granted Curtin's petition for rehearing en banc and vacated our order. Hill v. Curtin, No. 12–2528, 2014 WL 1923210, at *1 (6th Cir. May 13, 2014).
Congress enacted AEDPA to “reduce delays in the execution of state and federal criminal sentences, particularly in capital cases,” and “to further the principles of comity, finality, and federalism.” Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 206, 123 S.Ct. 1398, 155 L.Ed.2d 363 (2003). “AEDPA recognizes a foundational principle of our federal system: State courts are adequate forums for the vindication of federal rights.” Burt v. Titlow, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 10, 15, 187 L.Ed.2d 348 (2013). “ ” Id. (quoting Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458, 110 S.Ct. 792, 107 L.Ed.2d 887 (1990) ). “This principle applies to claimed violations of constitutional, as well as statutory, rights.” Id. “Recognizing the duty and ability of our state-court colleagues to adjudicate claims of constitutional wrong, AEDPA erects a formidable barrier to federal habeas relief for prisoners whose claims have been adjudicated in state court.” Id. at 15–16, 134 S.Ct. 10. It provides:
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
White v. Woodall, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1697, 1702, 188 L.Ed.2d 698 (2014) (citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “When reviewing state criminal convictions on collateral review, federal judges are required to afford state courts due respect by overturning their decisions only when there could be no reasonable dispute that they were wrong.” Woods v. Donald, –––U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1372, 1376, 191 L.Ed.2d 464 (2015). “Federal habeas review thus exists as ‘a guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems, not a substitute for ordinary error correction through...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ahmed v. Houk
...decision to represent himself, once knowingly and intelligently made, is a relinquishment of the right to counsel. See Hill v. Curtin, 792 F.3d 670, 678 (6th Cir. 2015) (noting that "a self-representation request" is "in effect, a waiver of the right to counsel"). As such, Petitioner's thir......
-
Pouncy v. Macauley
...Fowler v. Collins , 253 F.3d 244, 249-50 (6th Cir. 2001) ; James v. Brigano , 470 F.3d 636 (6th Cir. 2006) ; and Hill v. Curtin , 792 F.3d 670, 678 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc). The Court disagrees with Pouncy's reading of these cases and concludes that none of them hold that Zerbst clearly es......
-
Cassano v. Shoop
...omitted). Both of the panel majority's rulings failed to apply the deference required by AEDPA. See generally Hill v. Curtin , 792 F.3d 670, 677–79 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc).The panel opinion also held that given the question's words and context, "it was objectively unreasonable for the Ohi......
-
Curtis v. Boyd
...governing legal principle from [the Supreme Court's] decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner's case.'” Id. (quoting Harris Haeberlin, 526 F.3d 903, 909 (6th Cir. 2008)). A state court's application is not unreasonable under this standard simply because......
-
Trials
...reassertion of right to proceed pro se at sentencing stage was possible delay tactic and properly denied as untimely); Hill v. Curtin, 792 F.3d 670, 674, 677-79 (6th Cir. 2015) (defendant’s request to proceed pro se on first day of trial properly denied as untimely); U.S. v. Prucha, 856 F.......