Simpson v. Battaglia

Decision Date11 August 2006
Docket NumberNo. 04-3044.,04-3044.
Citation458 F.3d 585
PartiesRobert SIMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Deirdre BATTAGLIA, Warden,<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> Respondent-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

David H. Iskowich, Claire E. Labbe (argued), Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before POSNER, RIPPLE, and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Proceeding pro se, Robert Simpson was convicted by an Illinois jury of first degree murder and armed robbery and sentenced to death. Simpson's sentence was later commuted to natural life imprisonment without the possibility of parole by former Illinois Governor George Ryan. After exhausting his appeals and collateral remedies at the state level, Simpson filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied the petition on all the grounds Simpson alleged. On appeal Simpson primarily takes issue with his waiver of counsel and the performance of standby counsel. We affirm.

I. HISTORY

There is no dispute as to the factual background, with each side citing to portions of the trial record and to Simpson's two appearances before the Illinois Supreme Court, People v. Simpson, 172 Ill.2d 117, 216 Ill.Dec. 671, 665 N.E.2d 1228 (1996) (affirming Simpson's conviction and death sentence on direct appeal) ("Simpson I"), and People v. Simpson, 204 Ill.2d 536, 275 Ill.Dec. 34, 792 N.E.2d 265 (2001) (upholding denial of collateral relief) ("Simpson II"). We garnered the facts accordingly.

A. Robbery and Police Investigation

On May 10, 1992, Simpson and Carolyn LaGrone entered the Fairway Food grocery store in Glenwood, Illinois but soon left without making a purchase. A few minutes later they reentered the store. Simpson, carrying a gun concealed under a piece of newspaper, approached a service desk and told a store employee he was robbing the store. The employee responded, "You must be kidding." Simpson grabbed the employee by her smock and forced her to the ground. LaGrone approached the service area and held open a purse into which Simpson started putting money. Barbara Lindich, a store customer, walked up behind the woman and peered over LaGrone's shoulder. Simpson asked Lindich if she wanted to help and then shot her in the neck, a wound from which Lindich later died. Simpson and LaGrone left the store and got into a car in the parking lot in which Lurlarn Young was waiting. With Simpson at the wheel, the three drove off.

Shortly after arriving at the store, Glenwood police summoned Hayden Baldwin, a crime scene technician. Baldwin obtained fingerprint impressions from various objects and found a spent casing inside the service office. Baldwin returned to the scene later that evening and recovered a bullet fragment employees had discovered in a door frame.

On May 25, the police arrested LaGrone, and she gave a statement detailing the offense and the roles of Young and Simpson. Later that day, the police arrested Young, who was Simpson's live-in girlfriend, as an accomplice to murder. At the time of her arrest, Young was driving a car matching a description of the getaway car.

While in custody, Young gave police two statements which were reduced to writing. Young also signed a form consenting to the search of the apartment she shared with Simpson. That evening, the police used Young's keys to make a warrantless entry into the apartment. The police found Simpson at the residence and arrested him. Early the next morning, Simpson was placed in a lineup and was identified by employees and customers as the man who they saw commit the robbery.

The police further questioned Young, and on May 26, she signed a second consent to search form. The police, accompanied by Young, returned to the apartment and searched a storage locker in the basement where they found a .380 caliber semiautomatic pistol, a .25 caliber semiautomatic pistol, ammunition, and other evidence linking Simpson to the crime.

Forensic analysis revealed one of the pistols recovered from Simpson's storage locker produced characteristics that matched the cartridge case and bullet fragment recovered from the scene. The fingerprints lifted at the store were LaGrone's.

B. Simpson's Waiver of Counsel

Simpson's legal proceedings did not get off to a good start in the Circuit Court of Cook County. On June 17, 1992, Simpson, LaGrone, and Young were arraigned on charges of first degree murder, armed robbery, aggravated battery, and armed violence. Apparently while the court was making a record of the charges, Simpson attempted to confer with his co-defendants, leading to the following colloquy:

THE COURT: Move that defendant away from these young ladies. Now Mr. Simpson, do you have the funds to hire your own lawyer?

SIMPSON: We haven't had a chance to communicate. You think maybe we can get that opportunity?

THE COURT: I don't know who you are talking about communicating with?

SIMPSON: I'm talking about the three of us.

THE COURT: You're not the spokesman for these young ladies.

SIMPSON: I'm not saying I'm the spokesman. I asked you a simple question and you want to—

THE COURT: I asked you a question.

SIMPSON: I asked you could we have a conference.

THE COURT: No, you cannot.

SIMPSON: Well, then, fuck what you talking about. I talk to you like a man and you want to talk to me like you don't have good sense.

THE COURT: I assume, Mr. Simpson, you think you have nothing to lose, but I can hold you in contempt of court.

SIMPSON: It's not what I think, motherfucka—

THE COURT: I hold you in contempt and I sentence you to—

SIMPSON: I don't care. Fuck you.

THE COURT: —six months.

SIMPSON: Sentence me to fifty fucking year. I don't care.

THE COURT: Six months Cook County Department of Corrections.

SIMPSON: Right. Fuck what you talking about. I talk to you like a man and you—

THE COURT: I tell you what I think, Mr. Simpson—

SIMPSON: You can't tell me a motherfucking thing, motherfucker.

THE COURT: Remove Mr. Simpson from the courtroom.

Simpson was removed from the courtroom and taken into custody.2

Simpson appeared in court soon thereafter three times, each time represented by a public defender. At these appearances, Simpson said he was ready for trial and voiced his desire to proceed pro se. The court informed Simpson that he would need to formally waive counsel and that the public defender would be appointed as standby counsel. At the third appearance, on August 12, Simpson told the court that he wanted to go to trial as soon as possible even if it meant representing himself. When his appointed counsel, Frank Rago, said he needed a continuance to prepare for trial, Simpson petitioned the court to represent himself.

In response, the court said, "From looking at the charges in this case, it's a very complex case. I don't know if the State is going to be seeking the death penalty in this case, but they may be and there may be certain matters that you would not be able to handle if you do represent yourself in these matters. The law is that you will [be treated] just as if you were an attorney."

The court asked Simpson for an explicit waiver of his right to counsel. Simpson answered, "The problem is that too many people running up here doing too many different things and nobody is ever here that's supposed to be here each time. I want a jury trial and I'm ready for trial now." The court asked again for a waiver, and Simpson stated, "The last time I think we had talked and you said you were going to appoint him to act as co-counsel." The court asked a third time for a waiver, and Simpson said he wanted to go to trial, saying, "I'm going to represent myself if that's how the Court feels."

The court read the charges to Simpson and asked him if he understood, saying "Do you still wish to give up your right to a lawyer?" Simpson replied, "If that's what it takes to go to trial, yes." The court then read the penalties and asked Simpson if he understood, to which Simpson gave the same answer. The court then instructed Simpson that he had the right to a lawyer and that this right could not be taken away without his consent or approval. When the court asked Simpson if he understood, he said, "If I have a right to an attorney and the Court appoints an attorney, how come every time I step in here, somebody different steps up and doesn't know what's going on?" The court explained that Rago had lawyers assisting him, so that Simpson actually had three lawyers. The court also explained that the public defenders needed time to investigate in order to provide competent representation.

Should Simpson waive his right to an attorney, the court explained, it would appoint standby counsel whose role would be that of an observer. The court stated, "The reason why I do that is if there's some type of outburst or some type of thing that prevents me from proceeding to trial, because you have to be your own lawyer, then what may happen is if I have to remove you from the courtroom, then the stand-by counsel would then come in to represent you . . . . I would let you confer with that standby counsel if you wished to, but you would be representing yourself. That person would not be actively engaged at all in your trial. You would be representing yourself." Simpson replied, "Sounds fine."

The court clarified that if Simpson wanted to be represented by a lawyer, the lawyer was duty bound to do so effectively, which would require time to look at the case. The court then explained what functions a lawyer would perform and that if Simpson lacked the money, an attorney would be appointed for him. The court asked, "Do you have any questions about anything I have said to you?" Simpson replied, "No." The court then asked "Knowing everything that I have said, do you still wish to give up your right to have a lawyer represent you in ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
151 cases
  • State v. Hackett
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 17 Diciembre 2020
    ...noted, if standby counsel is too actively involved, a defendant's right to self-representation may be violated. See Simpson v. Battaglia , 458 F.3d 585, 597 (7th Cir.2006). It is well established that there is no constitutional right to standby counsel{¶ 11} As we have explained, courts are......
  • US EX REL. HARRIS v. Shaw
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 13 Enero 2010
    ...could be sentenced to a term of years rather than natural life if a new sentencing hearing is held. See also Simpson v. Battaglia, 458 F.3d 585, 595 (7th Cir.2006); United States ex rel. Harris v. McCann, 558 F.Supp.2d 826, 836-37 B. Federal Habeas Corpus Petition Respondent concedes that t......
  • Wilkins v. Shirleson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • 6 Septiembre 2011
    ...have the right to either counsel of his own choosing or "hybrid" representation. See, e.g., Wilson, 515 F.3d at 696; Simpson v. Battaglia, 458 F.3d 585, 597 (7th Cir. 2006). See also John-Charles v. California, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 2937945, at *5-*6 (July 22, 2011). Petitioner also asserts......
  • Virsnieks v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 2 Abril 2008
    ...on point or where the Court has reserved the question. Lockhart v. Chandler, 446 F.3d 721, 724 (7th Cir.2006); Simpson v. Battaglia, 458 F.3d 585, 597 (7th Cir.2006). To a very limited extent, reference to lower court holdings may be evidence of a rule mandated implicitly by the Supreme Cou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT