Randolph v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Corr.

• Citation: 5 F.4th 362
• Decision Date: 20 July 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-9003,20-9003
• Parties: Samuel RANDOLPH v. SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Superintendent Greene SCI; and Superintendent Rockview SCI, Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

5 F.4th 362

Samuel RANDOLPH

v.SECRETARY PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Superintendent Greene SCI; and Superintendent Rockview SCI, Appellants.

No. 20-9003

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued April 26, 2021

Filed: July 20, 2021

Ryan H. Lysaght [ARGUED], Dauphin County Office of District Attorney, 101 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101, Counsel for Appellants Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Superintendent Greene SCI, and Superintendent Rockview SCI

Jennifer Chiccarino, Aren Adjoian [ARGUED], Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601 Walnut Street, The Curtis Center, Suite 540, West Philadelphia, PA 19106, Counsel for Appellee Samuel Randolph

Before: CHAGARES, KRAUSE, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

RESTREPO, Circuit Judge.

The week before his state capital trial, Samuel Randolph hired Samuel Stretton, his counsel of choice, to replace Allen Welch, his court-appointed lawyer. Once he was hired, Stretton, on the Thursday before Monday's jury selection, entered his appearance and asked the trial court if it could delay the start of trial until the following month. Citing previous delays and the proximity to trial, the trial court denied that request. Stretton next asked if the trial court could delay the start of trial by just a couple of days. But the court denied that request, too. Finally, Stretton asked if the trial court could push back Monday morning's jury selection by just three hours so that he could attend a previously scheduled, mandatory engagement in the morning and then pick Randolph's jury in the afternoon. As it had twice before, the trial court denied Stretton's request and set jury selection for Monday morning. Then, when Stretton did not appear for jury selection, the court denied Stretton's motion for a continuance and rejected his entry of appearance. Randolph therefore had no choice but to proceed to trial represented by his court-appointed lawyer. The trial ended in convictions on all counts, including two counts of first-degree murder, and the trial court sentenced Randolph to death.

On direct appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld Randolph's convictions and sentence, and rejected Randolph's claim that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to the counsel of his choice. Years later, on federal habeas review, the District Court determined that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision unreasonably applied clearly established federal law, warranting de novo review of Randolph's Sixth Amendment claim. Conducting that review, the District Court concluded that Randolph suffered a Sixth Amendment violation, a structural error not subject to harmless error analysis. The Court therefore granted Randolph's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and gave the state ninety days to retry Randolph or release him, pending the resolution of any appeal. The Commonwealth now appeals and, for the reasons that follow, we will affirm.¹

I. BACKGROUND

Although this case has a long procedural history, we recount here only the handful of events in the months leading up to Randolph's trial that are relevant to his Sixth Amendment choice-of-counsel claim. Those facts include the trial court's appointment of counsel; the degradation of the relationship between Randolph and his court-appointed counsel; Randolph's consideration of proceeding pro se; the attempt by Randolph's counsel of choice to continue the trial to allow him to represent Randolph; and the trial court's decision not to delay the start of jury selection, which had the effect of preventing Randolph from being represented by the counsel of his choice.

A. The state trial court appoints counsel for Randolph

In July 2002, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, Randolph was arraigned on two counts of first-degree murder, one count each of attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder, five counts of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury, and several other lesser charges. In line with Pennsylvania law governing punishment for first-degree murder, the government informed Randolph that it would seek the death penalty.

Two attorneys, Anthony Thomas and Roger Laguna, were present at Randolph's July 2002 arraignment. But neither was willing or able to represent Randolph on the capital charges. Thomas attended at the request of Randolph's family but did not enter a formal appearance. He had been a member of the bar for just two years and had never tried a homicide case, let alone a capital one. Roger Laguna had been handling Randolph's less serious charges. But he too felt unprepared to try the capital case. So he asked the trial court to appoint substitute counsel. The trial court obliged. The following month, the trial court appointed Allen Welch to lead Randolph's defense, and set trial for February 2003.

B. Randolph's trial is delayed and his relationship with appointed counsel deteriorates

Randolph's relationship with Welch began to deteriorate soon after Welch's appointment. At a January 3, 2003, pretrial conference, Randolph told the court that he and Welch were at odds about trial strategy. Welch wanted Randolph to submit to psychological evaluations—perhaps to pursue an insanity defense, see App. 614, or at least to gather evidence of circumstances mitigating capital punishment—but Randolph staunchly refused. Additionally, Randolph wanted to press certain arguments (relating, it seems, to prosecutorial misconduct and constitutional violations) that he claimed Welch was not even entertaining.

Randolph also expressed to the court his dissatisfaction with Welch's commitment to his case. Randolph told the court that Welch had visited him just once in the five months since Welch's appointment, App. 614, and that Welch had told him he only took the appointment as a "favor" to the county's court administrators, App. 615. Welch assured the court that he was committed to Randolph's defense. He reminded the court that Randolph's criminal case was complex and claimed he had only recently received the bulk of Randolph's case file from Randolph's previous counsel and still had not received portions of Randolph's grand jury transcripts from the Commonwealth.

Despite Welch's assurances, Randolph was convinced Welch did not have his best interests at hand. Indeed, Randolph's relationship with Welch had deteriorated to such a degree that Randolph asked the court whether he could represent himself pro se. App. 618 ("Your Honor, you did say that I did have an option ... to go pro se if I would want to, right?"). The court confirmed that "[t]hat's a right you have" but "would just strongly, strongly tell you not to do that." App. 618. Welch agreed, acknowledging that Randolph "has an absolute right to proceed pro se," but "plead[ed] with him with every fiber of my being not to do that." Id. Sensing that proceeding pro se would be unwise, Randolph then asked if Thomas could represent him, as well. After a brief sidebar, Thomas agreed to participate in Randolph's defense. App. 617-18.

By the end of the hearing, Randolph, Welch, and the court appear to have reached a tenuous compromise. With Thomas assisting Welch, Randolph begrudgingly accepted Welch as lead counsel, and Welch agreed to focus more of his energy on Randolph's case. See App. 613. But because Welch was nowhere near prepared to try the case, the court agreed to delay the start of trial until March 10, 2003.

C. Another delay, further acrimony, and Randolph again requests to proceed pro se

Trial did not take place in March, however. Welch's mother became critically ill and was hospitalized. Welch therefore moved for another continuance. The trial court granted that request and reset trial for May 5, 2003.

With the trial delayed, the trial court, later in March, held another conference to dispose of various pretrial motions filed by the parties. The hearing marked a further deterioration in Randolph's relationship with Welch. For example, near the end of the conference, Randolph asked the court what his speedy trial rights were and whether and how he could effectuate them. As part of its response, the trial court pointed out that Randolph already had filed his pretrial motions. Randolph claimed he had no idea what motions had been filed on his behalf or what those motions contained, and again complained that Welch refused to visit him. App. 763 ("I don't even know what motion was filed on my [behalf]—[Welch] won't come see me. He won't tell me or give me a copy of nothing. I don't even know what's going on, Your Honor."). Welch conceded that he did not share the motions with Randolph prior to their filing and that he had only visited Randolph in prison once. See id. Randolph again asked to represent himself pro se. Id. ("To settle all this, I would like to go pro se on the record right now."). The trial court refused to grant Randolph's request then-and-there, and instead told Randolph to contemplate his decision and, if he wished, to file a motion articulating the reasons supporting his request.

The following week, the trial court held another pretrial conference to consider Randolph's request to proceed pro se. At the conference, Randolph complained of "multiple deficiencies concerning Mr. Welch's performance," and "ma[d]e an oral motion to change [his] appointed counsel." App. 765. The trial court denied Randolph's motion, telling Randolph that "[t]he Court appoints counsel for you," and that it "[did not] see anything in [Welch's] performance that would even merit that request or for me to grant that request." Id.

Randolph and the trial court then discussed Randolph's request to proceed pro se. Randolph asked the court whether, if he were to proceed pro se, he could have daily access to the prison's law library. (The trial court said it would ask the prison's warden to grant Randolph more time in the library, but that it could not guarantee any result.) Randolph then asked who...