Walford v. Bosch, Case No. 20-cv-1637 (SRN/TNL)

• Decision Date: 02 July 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 20-cv-1637 (SRN/TNL)
• Parties: Omar Kwabena Walford, Petitioner, v. Warden Guy Bosch, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

Omar Kwabena Walford, Petitioner, v. Warden Guy Bosch, Respondent.

Case No. 20-cv-1637 (SRN/TNL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

July 2, 2021

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Omar Kwabena Walford, OID# 204538, MCF Stillwater, 970 Pickett Street North, Bayport, MN 55003 (pro se Petitioner); and

Jeffrey Wald, Assistant Ramsey County Attorney, 345 Wabasha Street North, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for Respondent).

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court, United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, on pro se Petitioner Omar Kwabena Walford's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, ECF No. 1. Petitioner is proceeding pro se. Respondent Warden Guy Bosch is represented by Assistant Ramsey County Attorney Jeffrey Wald.

This action has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for a report and recommendation to the Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1. For the reasons set forth below, this Court recommends that the Petition be denied and this action be dismissed with prejudice.

II. BACKGROUND

In 2015, Petitioner was charged with four counts of assault. State v. Walford, No. A18-1904, 2019 WL 4745370, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2019) [hereinafter Walford III], rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 17, 2019); see generally State v. Walford, No. 62-CR-15-4027 (Minn. Dist. Ct.) [hereinafter Walford].

A. Trial: Walford

Petitioner's trial was scheduled for December 2015. Walford III, 2019 WL 4745370, at *1; Resp't's App. at 9-10,¹ ECF No. 10-1; Pet'r's Br. at 2, ECF No. 7. The trial was continued, however, "several times, for reasons including scheduling conflicts, to provide [Petitioner's] public defender an opportunity to gather more evidence, and because [Petitioner's] public defender was on medical leave for a period of time." Walford III, 2019 WL 4745370, at *1; see Resp't's App. at 10; Pet'r's Br. at 2. On January 17, 2017, Petitioner

requested to discharge the office of the public defender and proceed pro se. [Petitioner] told the [trial] court that there was a breakdown in his relationship with his public defender that could not be repaired. [Petitioner] acknowledged that another attorney would not be appointed for him. The [trial] court accepted [Petitioner's] petition to proceed pro se and discharged the office of the public defender.

Walford III, 2019 WL 4745370, at *1; see Resp't's App. at 10, 14-15; Pet'r's Br. at 3, 8-9; see generally Resp't's App. at 46-62 (Jan. 17, 2017 hearing transcript), 64-67 (petition to proceed pro se).

Approximately three weeks later, on February 9², 2017, the trial court appointed advisory counsel for Petitioner. Resp't's App. at 68-69; see Resp't's App. at 15; Pet'r's Br. at 10. The order indicated that advisory counsel "was not required to be prepared to assume full representation of [Petitioner]." Resp't's App. at 15; accord Pet'r's Br. at 10; see Resp't's App. at 68 ("The defendant retains the right to decide when and how to use advisory counsel; decisions about the use of advisory counsel may affect a later request by the defendant to allow advisory counsel to assume full representation.").

Petitioner proceeded to a bench trial and was found guilty on three of the four counts. Walford III, 2019 WL 4745370, at *1; Resp't's App. at 11; Pet'r's Br. at 3. Petitioner was sentenced to prison and appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Walford III, 2019 WL 4745370, at *1; Resp't's App. at 11; Pet'r's Br. at 3, 10.

B. First Appeal: Walford II

On appeal, Petitioner argued that the trial court erred by denying his request for substitute counsel and accepting his waiver of counsel where the request was timely and supported by exceptional circumstances. Resp't's App. at 77.

1. Arguments on Appeal

Petitioner's arguments were premised on his right to assistance of counsel under the federal Constitution, referencing, among other authorities, the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; the state's obligation to provide counsel for indigent defendants, citing Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344-45 (1963); and the attachment of the SixthAmendment's right to counsel at "critical stages of a criminal prosecution," citing United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 224-25 (1967). Resp't's App. at 86-87; see also Resp't's App. at 72.

Among other things, Petitioner argued that his waiver of counsel was not voluntary because the "decision to waive counsel rested on the false premise that the [trial] court could not appoint substitute counsel." Resp't's App. at 91. Petitioner also argued that absence of an inquiry into his complaints regarding his public defender "preclude[d] a finding that [his] waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel . . . was voluntarily made." Resp't's App. at 92. In support of these arguments, Petitioner cited to federal case law from the Third and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeal regarding the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the waiver of such right. Resp't's App. at 91-92; see also Resp't's App. at 72. See Pazden v. Maurer, 424 F.3d 303, 312-14 (3d Cir. 2005); Gilbert v. Lockhart, 930 F.2d 1356, 158-60 (8th Cir. 1991).

Petitioner also cited to, for example, State v. Fagerstrom, 176 N.W.2d 261 (Minn. 1970), State v. Worthy, 583 N.W.2d 270 (Minn. 1998), and State v. Munt, 831 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 2013), which discussed a federal constitutional right to counsel. See, e.g., Resp't's App. at 86-89; see also Resp't's App. at 72. He also cited to State v. Gillam, 629 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 2001), which discussed standards for appointment of substitute counsel under state law and Eighth Circuit precedent in the context of a Sixth-Amendment challenge. Resp't's App. at 86; see also Resp't's App. at 72.

In addition, Petitioner argued that he was entitled to a new trial because he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a critical stage of the prosecution, includinga pretrial hearing in which he waived his right to a jury trial and motions in limine were argued as well as opening statements. In support of this argument, Petitioner cited, among other authorities, the Supreme Court's decisions in Wade and Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191 (2008), and the Eighth Circuit's decision in Hanson v. Passer, 13 F.3d 275 (8th Cir. 1994). See Resp't's App. at 92-93; see also Resp't's App. at 72-73.

2. Walford II Order Opinion

"In an order opinion, [the Minnesota Court of Appeals] concluded that the [trial] court abused its discretion by failing to determine if [Petitioner's] allegations concerning an irreparable breakdown in his relationship with his public defender were true and serious enough to justify the appointment of substitute counsel." Walford III, 2019 WL 4745370, at *1 (citing State v. Walford, No. A17-1396, slip op. at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. July 31, 2018) [hereinafter Walford II]); accord Resp't's App. at 99. The Minnesota Court of Appeals "remanded the case to the [trial] court with 'directions to conduct an inquiry into [Petitioner's] statement that there was an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.'" Walford III, 2019 WL 4745370, at *1 (quoting Walford II, slip op. at *7); accord Resp't's App. at 101; see Resp't's App. at 3; Pet'r's Br. at 4. The Minnesota Court of Appeals

explained that, if the [trial] court finds that there was not an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship that affected the public defender's ability or competence to represent [Petitioner], then [Petitioner's] waiver of counsel was voluntary and his conviction stands. [Walford II, slip op.] at *7-8. But if the [trial] court finds that there was an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship that affected the public defender's ability or competence to represent [Petitioner], the district court should determinewhether [Petitioner] is entitled to a new trial. Id. at *8.

Walford III, 2019 WL 4745370, at *1; accord Resp't's App. at 101-02.

C. Evidentiary Hearing

On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. Walford III, 2019 WL 4745370, at *1; see Resp't's App. at 11; Pet'r's Br. at 4; see generally Resp't's App. at 103-180 (Oct. 22, 2018 hearing transcript). At the evidentiary hearing, Petitioner "testified concerning the claimed breakdown in the attorney-client relationship." Walford III, 2019 WL 4745370, at *1; see, e.g., Resp't's App. at 16-19; Resp't's Br. at 11-15.

Petitioner began by testifying that he first met with the public defender at her office to discuss his case after he had been arraigned. Resp't's App. at 112-14, 116. Petitioner viewed a video of "discovery evidence" and provided the public defender with information on potential witnesses and a possible alibi. Resp't's App. at 113-14, 116-18. Petitioner testified that, roughly three weeks later, at the next court date, the public defender sought a continuance to look into these things further. Resp't's App. at 113; see Resp't's App. at 114. Petitioner testified that there "was way more than enough time for [the public defender] to have gotten the information she needed to know in order to be ready for court that day and avoid having a continuance." Resp't's App. at 113. After this initial meeting, Petitioner testified that he "never met [with the public defender] again," but would only see her "briefly before court appearances." Resp't's App. at 118.

Petitioner testified that "the beginning of the end of the trust level" occurred around February 2016. Resp't's App. at 119. Petitioner testified that the public defender explained to him that he was "facing 129 months" if he went to trial and lost. Resp't's App. at 119.Petitioner testified that the public defender told him that, if found guilty, he would receive "a consecutive sentence for each victim," "get 60 months for each victim consecutively." Resp't's App. at 119; see also Resp't's App. at 120, 144. Petitioner also testified that, "at that time, [he] had no other pending...