Cleveland v. People of California

MEMORANDUM *

In this Section 2254 case, Robert Cleveland asserts that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation when the state trial court appointed counsel (over his objection) to represent him in probation revocation proceedings. The district court dismissed the petition on the ground that Cleveland had “apparently” acquiesced in the termination of his pro se status. To the same effect, the state maintains that the record reflects no objection by Cleveland to counsel’s appearance on any of the dates on which his revocation proceeding took place, and that this suffices. We disagree.

The state court record is incomplete. Despite an order by the magistrate judge to produce it, the state never furnished a copy of the transcript of proceedings on July 15, 1993, the date on which the trial judge appointed counsel. Cleveland’s verified petition raised the issue by stating that he “was not allowed” to proceed pro se, and his verified objection to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation specifically avers that he “objected to the appointment” of counsel but that the state trial judge nevertheless refused to allow him to represent himself. In the face of…