United States v. Adam Hill
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6715
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine and restitution, and 5 years of supervised release.
- Defendant filed an appeal; defense counsel filed an Anders brief seeking leave to withdraw and stated the defendant did not wish to challenge the guilty plea.
- The presentence report proposed numerous conditions of supervised release; counsel had earlier objected only to a ban on devices that take photos/videos, which was deleted.
- At sentencing the judge offered to read the conditions aloud; the defendant signed a written waiver after a brief in-court conference with counsel but the judge did not confirm on the record that the defendant knowingly waived objections to the conditions.
- The court identified multiple supervised-release conditions that are vague or ambiguous (firearm/"destructive device," reporting "manner and frequency," "follow instructions," residence/employment notice timing and scope, financial-apportionment, mandatory work, third-party notification).
- The Seventh Circuit remanded limitedly for the district court to determine whether the defendant knowingly waived all challenges to the supervised-release conditions; if not, further proceedings will follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant knowingly waived objections to supervised-release conditions | Anders panel (prosecution implicit) contends no challenge; waiver in signed form suffices | Hill (through counsel) indicated no desire to contest conditions and signed waiver after brief conference | Remanded: district court must determine whether the waiver was knowing; if knowing, appeal ends; if not, further proceedings required |
| Vagueness of firearm/destructive-device restriction | Government imposes broad prohibition for safety | Hill would argue wording permits confusion (e.g., "destructive device" vs weapon; what court approval allows) | Court flagged ambiguity and treated as problematic; inadequate scrutiny by counsel/judge unless waiver was knowing |
| Vagueness of reporting requirement ("manner and frequency") | Government treats as routine administrative condition | Hill could argue lack of definition makes the condition unclear and potentially overbroad | Court questioned lack of definition/justification and noted judge did not explain necessity sufficiently |
| Vagueness of "follow instructions" and visits "at home or elsewhere" | Government defers to probation officer discretion for supervision | Hill would argue instructions and "elsewhere" are unbounded and could reach unreasonable orders or locations | Court found condition vague and emphasized need for limits (e.g., "reasonable") or clearer guidance |
| Vagueness of financial/work/third-party-notification conditions | Government argues these support supervision and victim restitution | Hill would argue conditions may be overbroad or conflict with basic needs (tax refunds as sole income, unemployability, extent of required third-party warnings) | Court identified substantial vagueness and potential unfairness; counsel should have challenged these unless a knowing waiver occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (court must permit counsel to withdraw if appeal frivolous and notify defendant)
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (reporting-to-probation condition discussion)
- United States v. Poulin, 809 F.3d 924 (7th Cir. 2016) (administrative supervised-release requirements can be imposed after explanation)
- United States v. Armour, 804 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2015) (clarifying notice-of-employment reporting phrasing)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (struck down vague supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Henry, 813 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2016) (criticizing vagueness in location/visit conditions)
- United States v. Downs, 784 F.3d 1180 (7th Cir. 2015) (discussing substitutability between custody length and supervision conditions)
- United States v. Bryant, 754 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2014) (defendant entitled to evaluate risk that challenging conditions could alter prison term)