Wood v. Quarterman

• Decision Date: 26 June 2007
• Docket Number: No. 05-70042.,05-70042.
• Parties: Jeffery Lee WOOD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

491 F.3d 196

Jeffery Lee WOOD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-70042.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 26, 2007.

James Scott Sullivan (argued), San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Tomee Morgan Heining (argued), Post-conviction Litigation Div., Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

DENNIS, Circuit Judge:

This case involves a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition filed by Jeffery Wood, a Texas death row inmate. The district court dismissed the petition in its entirety, but granted Wood a certificate of appealability ("COA") on his claims: (1) that the state trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation by denying his request to proceed pro se during the punishment phase of his trial; and (2) in the alternative, that his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to present any mitigating evidence during the punishment phase of Wood's trial.¹ We conclude that the state court's decision denying Wood's claims was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, and we therefore AFFIRM.

I. Background

On January 22, 1996, petitioner Jeffery Wood was indicted in Texas for capital murder in connection with a shooting that occurred during a convenience store robbery. Prior to trial, the state court conducted two competency hearings to determine whether Wood was competent to stand trial. At the conclusion of the first, a jury determined that Wood was not competent to stand trial at that time, but would likely attain competency in the foreseeable future. After that hearing, Wood was committed to a state psychiatric facility. The facility's staff later informed the court that it believed that Wood was competent to stand trial. At that point, the trial court held a second competency hearing, at which the jury determined that Wood was competent to stand trial.

Wood was convicted of capital murder by a jury on February 25, 1998. Immediately after the jury returned its guilty verdict, Wood informed the trial judge that he wanted to terminate his lawyers and proceed pro se during the punishment phase of his trial.² Wood said that he was not dissatisfied with counsel's representation, but explained that he did not want to present any evidence during the punishment phase or cross-examine any of the state's witnesses. Wood further stated that he did not want to force his lawyers to sit and do nothing on his behalf and that, in any event, he did not believe that they would comply with his wishes.

The trial court denied Wood's motion. The court first informed Wood that he controlled the conduct of his attorneys: "Mr. Wood, you control your defense. You know, attorneys ultimately are going to have to follow your lead as to what you want to do. They can't overrule you." The court then stated that it was denying Wood's motion to proceed pro se because it wanted to ensure that he was able to understand the sentencing proceedings:

I'm going to deny your request to represent yourself in the second phase. The issue, especially the death penalty issue, is so intense from both an emotional standpoint and a legal standpoint, that I don't feel comfortable with you understanding all the concepts of what's going on and not having legal counsel that you can rely on.

. . . .

But I'm going — I'm going to tell you once again that you need to direct your attorneys on how you want them to prepare your defense or how you want them to react to evidence and then rely on their expertise in doing what you want to do, but I'm going to deny your request to fire your attorneys.

After the court ruled, defense counsel expressed concern that the ruling put them "on the horns of a dilemma" about whether or not to follow their client's instructions, since Wood had instructed them to not cross-examine any of the state's witnesses and to not call any defense witnesses during the punishment phase. The trial judge acknowledged the difficulty of the situation, but reminded counsel that "it's your client and your call whether or nor [sic] you want to bring [defense witnesses] or cross-examine anybody. I can't tell you to do or not to do it."³ During this exchange, the trial court explained in further detail its reasons for denying Wood's motion to proceed pro se:

[I]f the Defendant would have wanted to do his own defense and had theories about how he wanted to conduct his own defense, I think I would have to go through a very slow process of determining whether or not he had voluntarily decided to waive his right to counsel and had the ability to go ahead and present his own defenses, but it appears, kind of reading through the lines, that Mr. Wood wants to not put — to not defend himself.

. . . .

And if he doesn't want to defend himself, I want him to have counsel to tell him what that means and to explain to him what his options are if he doesn't want to examine a witness, what that means by not cross-examining or calling a witness, and so I want him to have attorneys there telling him what everything means, every step when you're making this decision. . . .

I'm going to stay with my prior ruling of not allowing Mr. Wood to represent himself and keeping you and Mr. Whitlow on the case, but I would welcome you to take a look at this issue and see if you can find any precedent for it in the next two or three days.

Several days later, Wood renewed his request to proceed pro se by written motion. Shortly before the punishment phase of the trial was to begin, the court addressed, and denied, Wood's renewed motion. After eliciting Wood's admission that counsel were cooperating with his directives, the court again explained its ruling:

Based on the testimony I've heard about your educational background and your experience with the criminal justice system, I'm of the opinion that you still need to have counsel with you that you could ask questions of and make sure that you know what's going on and that you're not taken advantage of by this proceeding, so I note that you have requested to represent yourself and I'm going to deny that request and continue these gentlemen as your counsel and you have the advantage of calling on them whenever you want to call on them during the punishment phase of trial.

The trial court does not appear to have considered the timing of Wood's motion as a factor in denying his request to proceed pro se.

Throughout the punishment phase of the trial, Wood's counsel complied with his instructions. They did not cross-examine any of the state's punishment-phase witnesses, and the defense did not present any evidence of its own. After deliberating for approximately one hour, the jury returned a verdict that: (1) Wood would be a future danger to society; (2) Wood deliberately caused the death of the victim; and (3) there were insufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant a life sentence. Wood was sentenced to death based on those jury findings.

Wood's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. In March 2000, Wood filed a state habeas petition asserting some 29 claims for relief. On October 2, 2000, the state trial court denied relief. As is relevant here, the court found that: (1) the trial court did not err in denying Wood's request to proceed pro se because, based on the trial court's "accumulated knowledge" of Wood's circumstances, it "was in an adequate position to make and [sic] meaningful determination on the issue," and because "the request for self-representation was not presented in a timely manner"; and (2) trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance, in light of Wood's specific and repeated directives that counsel not put on a defense during the punishment phase of the trial. On May 9, 2001, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopted the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied relief.⁴

Wood then filed his section 2254 petition with the district court. In a lengthy opinion dated August 24, 2005, the district court dismissed the petition. With respect to Wood's request to proceed pro se, the district court first noted that the state trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when it denied Wood's motions. Wood, 386 F.Supp.2d at 857. Nevertheless, the district court held that the state habeas court's decision denying Wood relief on this claim was not an unreasonable application of federal law because "the core concerns of Faretta [v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)] were not violated during the punishment phase of petitioner's trial." Id. at 858-60, 95 S.Ct. 2525. Relying on McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 104 S.Ct. 944, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984), the district court reasoned that, under the circumstances, Wood's lawyers "served as little more than standby counsel for petitioner during the punishment phase" of the trial, and that the state habeas court could therefore have reasonably concluded that this arrangement did not run afoul of Faretta's "core" concern, i.e., that Wood be able to maintain control over the conduct of his defense. Wood, 386 F.Supp.2d at 858-60. In light of this disposition, the district court did not reach the state habeas court's additional finding that Wood's motion to proceed pro se was untimely. Id. at 860 n. 72.

With respect to Wood's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the district court found that two of Wood's arguments — that he was entitled to a presumption of prejudice under the Supreme Court's decision in Cronic, see 466 U.S. at 659-62, 104 S.Ct. 2039, and that counsel were ineffective for failing to request a competency evaluation during the punishment phase of the trial — were not exhausted before the state courts and were therefore...