United States v. King

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RODERICK KING, Appellant

No. 22-3095

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

August 21, 2024

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 17, 2024

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania District Court No. 2-21-cr-00184-001 District Judge: Honorable Christy Criswell Wiegand

Before: HARDIMAN, SMITH, and FISHER, Circuit Judges

OPINION ^[*]

SMITH CIRCUIT JUDGE.

A jury found Roderick King guilty of one count of sex trafficking a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1) (b)(2), and 1594(a), and two counts of producing material depicting the sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The District Court sentenced King to 444 months on the sex trafficking charge and 360 months on the production charges, to be served concurrently. King appealed. We will affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

After a grand jury indicted King in April 2021 on the above-referenced criminal offenses, a federal public defender entered his appearance on King's behalf. Despite being represented by counsel, King filed a pro se motion to dismiss. The District Court denied the motion, without prejudice to the filing of a counseled motion. Shortly thereafter, his federal public defender filed two motions. First, counsel sought to postpone trial and other pretrial deadlines. Second, counsel moved to withdraw as King's attorney. The District Court scheduled a hearing on the motion to withdraw, which recited a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. In light of the pendency of the motion to withdraw, the Court granted a postponement of trial until January 18, 2022. The Court further determined that the time between its order continuing trial and the new trial date was excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, see 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), because it avoided a miscarriage of justice and gave the defense reasonable time to effectively prepare the case.

After the hearing on the motion to withdraw, the District Court granted counsel leave to withdraw and appointed new counsel. King's new counsel sought leave to reinstate the right to file pretrial motions, which the Court granted. The original trial date of January 18, 2022, became the deadline for filing those motions. When January 18, 2022, arrived, the District Court, granted another counseled motion for a continuance, finding an ends-of-justice continuance was needed until February 17, 2022. Trial was set for March 21, 2022. Then, on February 18, 2022, the Government moved for a brief extension of time, which the Court granted. Six days later, the Government filed several trial submissions, including a motion in limine. Within days, at defense counsel's request, a two-day extension was granted.

During a pretrial conference on March 15, 2022, King objected to certain stipulations to which his counsel had agreed. King also requested that his counsel withdraw, and sought to proceed pro se. After conducting a Peppers colloquy to ensure that King's waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary, the Court granted the request to proceed pro se. See United States v. Peppers, 302 F.3d 120, 131 (3d Cir. 2002). The judge also appointed stand-by counsel and rescheduled trial for July 5, 2022.

During that same conference, King reiterated his disagreement with his former counsel's decision to enter into certain stipulations with the prosecution. Without these stipulations, the Government then was required to produce witnesses who could testify to the authenticity of certain social media accounts. King agreed to waive, under the Speedy Trial Act, the time between the March 15 conference and the new date for trial. In an order entered on March 15, the Court declared that the time between March 15 and the rescheduled trial, which was not to commence until July 5, was excludable under the Speedy Trial Act because a failure to grant the extension, given King's new pro se status and his request to withdraw certain stipulations, would likely result in a miscarriage of justice and would deny King the reasonable time required for trial preparation. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (iv).

Once again, before the commencement of trial, King filed several pro se motions. This time, he moved to dismiss the indictment for violations of the Speedy Trial Act and the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA). The District Court denied that motion and ruled on numerous other motions, allowing trial to commence on July 5, 2022.

At trial, the Government offered the testimony of not only law enforcement officers, but also the minor victim herself, who by that time had reached the age of majority. King did not present any evidence or defense witnesses. The jury found King guilty on all counts. The District Court conducted a sentencing hearing on December 16, 2022, and imposed a sentence of imprisonment of 444 months on the sex trafficking count and 360 months imprisonment on each of the two counts of producing material depicting the sexual exploitation of a minor. Each sentence ran concurrently with the other counts of conviction. The Court also ordered King to serve a life term of supervised release and directed him to pay certain fines.

Even before sentence was imposed, King filed a pro se notice of appeal. After reviewing King's appellate brief, the Government moved to vacate judgment and remand for a new trial. The Government explained that it had discovered, in reading King's pro se brief, that when King's first counsel sought to withdraw in October 2021, King had asked during an ex parte hearing that he be permitted to represent himself. According to King, the District Court had failed to conduct a Peppers colloquy^[1] during that ex parte proceeding.

This Court granted the Government's motion in part, ordered a limited remand, and stayed the appeal. We instructed the District Court to confirm whether King desired to continue to represent himself, and if so, to allow him "to accept or reject filings docketed between October 19, 2021," the date when his second counsel was appointed, and March 15, 2022, the date on which he was granted leave to represent himself. Third Circuit Dkt. No. 36. We directed the District Court, to the extent King would have handled any filing differently, to resolve whether this "would have so altered the legal or factual matters at trial as to be a basis for a new trial." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). And we further directed the District Court to "recalculate the Speedy Trial Act deadline to determine whether King's trial would have been timely had King originally made those decisions." Id. If the trial were determined to have been untimely, the District Court was directed to explain the remedy it would order.

In compliance with our order, the District Court provided King with the complete District Court docket and copies of all filings between October 19, 2021, and March 15, 2022. King objected to his counsel's status report and a few pretrial motions, as well as several pretrial motions and submissions filed by the Government. Mindful of our instruction, the District Court considered King's objections and concluded that "any error attributable to the delayed Peppers colloquy" in response to the initial request to proceed pro se had been "corrected in advance" of the July 5, 2022, trial. Cm/ecf no. 338, at 12.^[2] The District Court explained that King's right to self-representation had been "restored" as of March 15, 2022, and that he had "received 'a fair chance to present his case in his own way.'" Id. (quoting McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 177 (1984)). In addition, the District Court recalculated the time that had elapsed on the speedy trial clock. It concluded that commencement of King's trial on July 5, 2022, was timely and consistent with the Speedy Trial Act.

Before the District Court issued its ruling following remand, which concluded that King's right to self-representation had not been violated, King filed in this Court an amended informal brief, raising nineteen issues. Pursuant to a motion from the government, we lifted the stay and the parties completed appellate briefing.^[3]

II. The Sixth Amendment Right to Self-Representation

King asserts that the District Court violated his right to self-representation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.^[4] In Faretta v. California, the Supreme Court declared that the Sixth Amendment "implies a right of self-representation." 422 U.S. 806, 821 (1975). "In determining whether a defendant's Faretta rights have been respected, the primary focus must be on whether the defendant had a fair chance to present his case in his own way." McKaskle, 465 U.S. at 177.

Here King contends that his constitutional right to self-representation was violated because of the District Court's failure to accept his initial request to represent himself during the October 19, 2021, ex parte conference concerning defense counsel's motion to withdraw. King does not take issue with the District Court's ruling on limited remand that any error attributable to the failure to conduct a Peppers colloquy in October 2021 had been corrected in March 2022 when he took over the defense reins.^[5]

Our review of the record as a whole reveals that after the District Court allowed King to proceed pro se and advised that the case would "begin anew" for him, he vigorously represented himself. SA946.^[6] He filed numerous pro se motions and opposed the Government's pleadings. And he was personally involved in every facet of trial. See Cm/ecf no. 338, at 12 n.1. Because McKaskle instructs that our "primary focus" is on whether King had a "fair chance to present his case in his own way," 465 U.S. at 177, we...