Miller v. Smith

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging state court’s denial of his request to appoint new appellate counsel, under circumstances where appellate counsel had failed to file “no-merit report” that would have allowed state appellate court to review defendant's underlying claim that defendant had failed to understand his guilty plea. Record showed that: (1) state appellate court had cured any deprivation of defendant’s appeal rights and ordered defendant’s appointed appellate counsel to file no-merit report; and (2) no-merit report was not ever filed, where defendant expressed desire after state appellate court ruling to have appointed counsel not file such report and eventually obtained dismissal of appointed counsel. Ct. further found that right to counsel of choice did not extend to defendants who require counsel to be appointed for them and rejected defendant’s claim that state appellate court had improperly forced him to discharge appellate counsel and proceed pro se.