United States v. Christopher Boultinghouse
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7338
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Boultinghouse was indicted in 2006 on two counts of unlawful firearm possession after a prior felony; he pled guilty and received 77 months, followed by a three-year term of supervised release.
- By October 2011, Boultinghouse had completed imprisonment and began supervised release.
- On July 21, 2014, a petition to revoke alleged multiple violations, including failing drug tests in spring 2014 and an unreported June 9, 2014 arrest.
- A July 25, 2014 revocation hearing occurred without counsel; the court offered standby counsel and warned it was unwise to proceed pro se.
- The district court found four of five violations proven, revoked the release, and imposed a 24-month prison term without explaining the sentence.
- Boultinghouse appeals, arguing the waiver of counsel was not knowing and the court failed to state reasons for the sentence; the court vacates the sentence and remands for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent | Boultinghouse (plaintiff) argues waiver not adequately informed | Boultinghouse (defendant) contends adequate inquiry and context showed knowledge | Waiver deemed knowing and intelligent under totality of circumstances |
| Whether the 24-month sentence was properly reasoned | Boultinghouse contends no reasoning for sentence | Court did not articulate factors; sentence within range but lacks explanation | Remand for resentencing due to lack of stated reasons for the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Tovar v. United States, 541 U.S. 77 (U.S. 2004) ( Sixth Amendment waiver standards apply to counsel decisions; informing factors vary by case)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing and voluntary waiver)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (revocation hearings; due process in supervised release contexts)
- Kelley v. United States, 446 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2006) (revocation proceedings require due process protections; not always counsel-yes/no)
- Robertson v. United States, 648 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2011) (necessity of articulating reasons for revocation sentence within/without Guidelines)