William Thomas Bryan v. Dr. L. J. Pope, Warden

Bryan is a California state prisoner, convicted of robbery, a violation of California Penal Code, section 211. Proceeding in forma pauperis, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus claiming, inter alia, that the record of California’s criminal proceedings against him did not demonstrate a “knowing and intelligent” waiver of counsel. After California responded to Bryan’s petition and the appellant traversed this response, the District Court denied the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Our jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2106, 2241.

In Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1937), the Supreme Court announced the test for determining whether a valid waiver of counsel has occurred:

304 U.S. at 465 , 58 S.Ct. at 1023 (emphasis added). See also Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516 , 82 S.Ct. 884 , 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1961). In the light of the entire state court record, we cannot agree that it establishes with sufficient clarity an “intelligent and competent” waiver of counsel. For example, when the state trial judge asked the appellant if he wished to represent himself, he replied, “Well, I don’t exactly wish to but I am, more…