United States v. Dunbar
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12196
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Dunbar pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, which set a 48-month sentence on the drug charge and a consecutive 12-month sentence for supervised-release violation; the agreement did not waive rights to appeal.
- The district court scheduled hearings for sentencing on the drug charge and for revocation of supervised release, and began with the drug charge.
- During the PSR discussion, Dunbar moved for new counsel; the court denied substitution after an informal exchange about counsel performance.
- Dunbar submitted a pro se pleading alleging deficiencies by counsel and asserting mental disabilities; the court treated it as a notice of appeal and declined to substitute counsel.
- The court sentenced Dunbar to 48 months on the drug charge and then imposed a 36-month sentence for supervised-release violation, running consecutively, rejecting the parties’ 12-month recommendation.
- Dunbar appealed asserting four challenges related to counsel substitution, withdrawal of the plea, voluntariness of the plea, and the revocation sentence; the Tenth Circuit affirmed on all grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly denied substitute counsel. | Dunbar lacked effective counsel and there was a breakdown in communication. | Counsel failed to adequately communicate and advocate, warranting substitution. | No abuse; court’s inquiry and decision were reasonable. |
| Whether the Pro Se Pleading and statements should be treated as motions to withdraw the plea. | Pro se filings evidenced intent to withdraw plea. | Represented defendant; filings were not clear, timely, or proper motions. | Not treated as withdrawal motions; no error. |
| Whether the Rule 11 plea was knowing and voluntary given alleged misimpressions about sentencing exposure. | Counsel misinformed about potential sentences, undermining voluntariness. | No plain error since facts not clearly established and issues not properly preserved. | Plain-error review failed; no reversible error. |
| Whether the revocation sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. | Sentence was within statutory and guideline considerations given the violations. | Mental disability and sentencing factors warranted adjustment. | Not plainly erroneous; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lott v. United States, 310 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2002) (good-cause standard for substitution of counsel; communication breakdown factors)
- Anderson v. United States, 189 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 1999) (duty to inquire into defendant’s dissatisfaction with counsel)
- Hutchinson v. United States, 573 F.3d 1011 (10th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for substitution of counsel)
- United States v. Jenkins, 175 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 1999) (standard for reviewing district court rulings on counsel issues)
- Beers v. United States, 189 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 1999) (adequacy of district-court inquiry into withdrawal requests)
- Johnson v. United States, 961 F.2d 1488 (10th Cir. 1992) (adequacy of pro se filings when represented)
- Lopez-Medina v. Lopez-Medina, 596 F.3d 716 (10th Cir. 2010) (invited-error doctrine in revocation contexts)
- Frost v. United States, 684 F.3d 963 (10th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review requires undisputed facts for certain issues)
- Lewis v. United States, 594 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review when facts are disputed or未 established)
- Damato v. United States, 672 F.3d 832 (10th Cir. 2012) (standard for substantive reasonableness review of sentencing)
- Pinson v. United States, 542 F.3d 822 (10th Cir. 2008) (need not discuss every §3553(a) factor; focus on reasons for variation)
- Zuniga-Chavez v. United States, 464 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2006) (court not required to address every policy statement)
- Ruby v. United States, 706 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2013) (plain-error review when issues were not properly preserved)