Bilauski v. Steele, et al., No. 13-2210 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThe State appealed from the district court's order granting petitioner's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington based on counsel's failure to raise a claim that the trial court violated petitioner's right to self-representation under Faretta v. California by not conducting a Faretta hearing and not allowing him to proceed pro se. The court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief because, even if the court were to conclude that the Missouri Court of Appeals unreasonably determined that counsel's performance was constitutionally adequate, it was not unreasonable for the Missouri Court of Appeals to hold that petitioner's evidence of prejudice fell short of meeting Strickland's standard.
Court Description: Prisoner case - habeas. Even if the court were to conclude that the Missouri Court of Appeals unreasonably determined that direct appeal counsel's performance was constitutionally defective for failing to raise a Faretta issue, it was not unreasonable for that court to determine that Bilauski's evidence fell short of meeting Strickland's standard; on the record before the Missouri Court of Appeals, that court did not unreasonably determine that Bilauski had failed to invoke clearly and unequivocally the right to self-representation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.