Betts v. Litscher
| Decision Date | 22 February 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-3072,00-3072 |
| Parties | (7th Cir. 2001) Keith S. Betts, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon E. Litscher, Respondent-Appellee |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 97-C-147--Aaron E. Goodstein, Magistrate Judge.
Before Easterbrook, Manion, and Diane P. Wood, Circuit Judges.
After his conviction in state court for armed robbery, Keith Betts told the court that he wanted to appeal. Elizabeth Stephens, the assistant public defender assigned to represent him under Wis. Stat. sec.809.30, eventually decided that pursuing the appeal would be frivolous. But instead of seeking leave to withdraw while informing the court of potential issues and the analysis supporting counsel's conclusion that they are not meritorious, see McCoy v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988), First Assistant Public Defender Mary E. Waitrovich wrote to the court that Betts had "declined an opportunity to have a no-merit report filed by Attorney Stephens and elected to proceed pro se with an appeal." That is the last anyone heard from counsel.
Waitrovich may have thought that Betts had "elected to proceed pro se", but he had a different understanding. Betts peppered the court with requests for a lawyer to assist him. Every request was denied. The initial order, issued by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on August 14, 1989 shortly after Waitrovich's letter, stated that the public defender's office had "properly exercised its discretion in declining representation" and that as a result "new counsel will not be appointed for Betts." He persisted, only to be met by judicial declarations that he had forfeited his right to counsel (or his right to contest his lawyers' performance) by not taking one or another step required by state law, such as initiating a postconviction proceeding in the trial court under Wis. Stat. sec.974.02. Betts soldiered on but isn't much of a lawyer; his conviction and 20-year sentence were affirmed. Next Betts tried collateral relief, failing in that quest as well. The court ruled that all of his requests, including the demand for counsel on direct appeal, had been forfeited. See Wisconsin v. Betts, 1995 Wis. App. Lexis 1351 (1st Dist. Oct. 31, 1995). In federal court a magistrate judge, presiding by consent, denied Betts' petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Betts was constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel on direct appeal, but the state of Wisconsin gave him the runaround. It allowed counsel to withdraw unilaterally, then used the ensuing procedural shortcomings to block all avenues of relief. Yet one principal reason why defendants are entitled to counsel on direct appeal is so that they will not make the kind of procedural errors that unrepresented defendants tend to commit. The Constitution does not permit a state to ensnare an unrepresented defendant in his own errors and thus foreclose access to counsel. This is one of those rare cases where a state procedural ground not only is inadequate-- for it is circular and supposes that Betts properly lacked counsel when the missteps were made--but also contravenes rules articulated by the Supreme Court, and thus supports a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. sec.2254(d)(1) because the state decision is "contrary to . . . clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States". See also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).
Wisconsin does not deny that Betts was constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel on direct appeal, unless he waived that entitlement. There is scant evidence of waiver. Betts vociferously asserted that he wanted counsel. The only support for waiver is Waitrovich's statement. But Betts contested this, and the state court did not hold a hearing or use any other procedure to ascertain the truth. Indeed, the letter is inadequate on its own terms, for it does not reveal that Stephens or Waitrovich informed Betts about the judicial role. If they told Betts that his only options were either self-representation or a conclusive no-merit brief (= no representation), they gave him bad advice, for the court must review and may reject a no-merit report and either direct counsel to continue or appoint new counsel. Unfortunately, the record does not reveal what information, if any, the public defender's office provided before Betts made this election between evils (if indeed he made any choice). Understanding one's options is an essential ingredient of waiver when the right at stake is counsel. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938). Waiver therefore has not been established. See Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258 (1967). This case is some distance from Oimen v. McCaughtry, 130 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 1997), in which the defendant discharged his lawyer after a brief had been filed on appeal and must have known that he had a right to an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Berge
...within 120 days unless the State of Wisconsin grants him a new appeal with the assistance of appointed counsel. See Betts v. Litscher, 241 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2001); Walker v. McCaughtry, 72 F.Supp.2d 1025 (E.D.Wis.1999); Wisconsin ex rel. Toliver v. McCaughtry, 72 F.Supp.2d 960 (E.D.Wis.199......
-
State ex rel. Wren v. Richardson
...of potential merit." See State ex rel. Washington v. State, 2012 WI App 74, ¶23, 343 Wis. 2d 434, 819 N.W.2d 305 ; Betts v. Litscher, 241 F.3d 594, 596 (7th Cir. 2001) ("The Constitution does not permit a state to ensnare an unrepresented defendant in his own errors and thus foreclose acces......
-
State v. Pope
...does not permit a state to ensnare an unrepresented defendant in his own errors and thus foreclose access to counsel." Betts v. Litscher, 241 F.3d 594, 596 (7th Cir. 2001) (emphasis added).¶54 After more than twenty years of attempts to reinstate his direct appeal rights following his attor......
-
Brown v. Superintendent
...relief petition. Though this case is complicated by the Davis/Hatton procedure, it is nevertheless similar to Betts v. Litscher, 241 F.3d 594 (7th Cir.2001). In Betts, counsel withdrew after concluding that an appeal would be frivolous. The State court did not independently review that dete......
-
Trials
...559 (4th Cir. 1985) (due process requires that indigent defendants have right to counsel once right to appeal granted); Betts v. Litscher, 241 F.3d 594, 597 (7th Cir. 2001) (indigent defendant improperly denied assistance of counsel on direct appeal when public defender decided appeal would......
-
WI COS holds attorney filing of no-merit brief is violation of rules of professional responsibility.
...facts that a defendant was entitled to reinstatement of his appellate rights, but found them all distinguishable. In Betts v. Lit-scher, 241 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2001), appellate counsel closed the file without filing a no-merit brief; the Seventh Circuit ordered that his appellate rights be ......