The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on Wednesday could not conclude that a Colorado court had mishandled a criminal defendant’s self-representation case in violation of established rules.

Jimmie Wellmon assaulted a woman in a Denver hotel room, and a jury convicted him of attempted first-degree murder and menacing, among other charges. He received 70 years of prison time. Wellmon exhausted his appeals, but then filed a federal claim that asserted the state court acted unreasonably in handling Wellmon’s self-representation at trial.

Before trial, Wellmon moved to dismiss his public defender, saying he had “nothing but confrontations” with the attorney. The court granted the request and Wellmon represented himself. Although he had an advisory counsel to assist but not actively participate in his case, that lawyer asked the court to remove her because Wellmon’s behavior – including witness tampering – made her uneasy. Subsequently, Wellmon asked for a new public defender and received one.

Prior to the trial, the public defender realized a conflict of interest, namely that he also represented one of the witnesses in Wellmon’s witness tampering charge. Prosecutors agreed to avoid calling that witness and the judge said that Wellmon’s witness tampering could be tried separately if needed. Nevertheless, Wellmon moved to dismiss his lawyer again. The desire was mutual for the lawyer, who told the judge “there just seems to be a concerted effort to abuse counsel.”

Although the defender ended up staying with Wellmon, the plaintiff suddenly expressed a desire to call the witness who presented the conflict of interest with his lawyer. The judge lectured Wellmon on how he purposefully created problems for his case.

If the court continuously allowed Wellmon new representation, “any defendant at any time could create these conflicts simply by similar type of behavior,” said the judge. “Anytime you don’t like your public defender, you can directly or indirectly do all sorts of things and, boom, you have manipulated the system.”

After deeming it clear that Wellmon had waived his right to counsel and represent himself, the judge dismissed the public defender. Wellmon then asked for yet another public defender. The judge, advising Wellmon to “just make the best of it,” told him that he had created an impossible working relationship for any lawyer. Consequently, Wellmon did not put up a defense at trial.

Writing for the three-judge federal circuit panel, Judge Joel M. Carson III explained that federal courts can review state courts’ handling of cases if their conduct was so unreasonable that it ran contrary to clear U.S. Supreme Court direction. Carson sided with the Colorado Court of Appeals that there was no conflict of interest at trial owing to the agreement with prosecutors, and that Wellmon clearly waived his right to counsel.

As to the question of whether Wellmon should have been given a new public defender after he changed his mind on self-representation, the circuit judges acknowledged that the Supreme Court never explicitly ruled on this situation.

Carson noted that there is a “tension between the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to counsel at all critical stages of the criminal process and its concurrent promise of a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when [a criminal defendant] voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so”.

In the absence of clear guidance, the circuit court could not conclude that the Colorado judge performed an “unreasonable application of the general standards established by the Court’s assistance-of-counsel cases.”

The case is Jimmie Wellmon v. Colorado Department of Corrections, et al.