United States v. Campbell
659 F.3d 607
7th Cir.2011Background
- Campbell was convicted in May 2010 of two crack cocaine distribution counts, with minimum sentences of 10 years on Count 1 and 20 years on Count 2, to be served concurrently.
- Seventeen days before sentencing, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 was signed into law, which would reduce Count 2’s minimum and eliminate Count 1’s minimum if applied.
- Campbell appealed on two grounds: denial of his right to self-representation and the district court’s sentencing under pre-Act minima.
- The district court applied the then-existing minimums; Campbell argued the Act should apply retroactively to his conduct.
- The court concluded the Fair Sentencing Act does not apply retroactively to conduct preceding its enactment, so it cannot alter Campbell’s sentence.
- Campbell also challenged whether his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation was violated by the district court’s handling of his pro se request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Fair Sentencing Act apply retroactively? | Campbell contends Act lowers minima for Counts 1 and 2. | Campbell supports retroactive application per government position change. | FSA not retroactive to pre-Act conduct; Fisher controls in this circuit. |
| Did Campbell’s request to proceed pro se violate the Sixth Amendment? | Court denied self-representation by failing to conduct proper colloquy. | Campbell did not unequivocally waive counsel; conduct showed acquiescence to counsel. | No Sixth Amendment violation; no unequivocal waiver of the right to counsel; affirmed district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fisher, 635 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2011) (retroactivity of FSA based on conduct date)
- Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (right to refuse counsel and proceed pro se)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation)
- United States v. Oakey, 853 F.2d 551 (7th Cir. 1988) (timely request to proceed pro se)
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1984) (structure of right to self-representation)
- Tuitt v. Fair, 822 F.2d 166 (1st Cir. 1987) (unequivocal waiver requirement for pro se)
- Johnson, 223 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2000) (timeliness of pro se request)
- Miles, 572 F.3d 832 (10th Cir. 2009) (waiver of right to counsel by conduct)
- Buhl v. Cooksey, 233 F.3d 783 (3d Cir. 2000) (unequivocal waiver standard)
- Todd, 424 F.3d 525 (7th Cir. 2005) (colloquy required when self-representation is at issue)