United States v. Elbert Lee Williams, 29 F.4th 1306

Williams was arrested after a 2016 search found powder cocaine, crack, marijuana, cash, and a handgun; charged with possession with intent to distribute and related counts.
He was appointed counsel but sought to represent himself, advancing sovereign-citizen theories; the district court held a Faretta hearing and orally denied his request, finding he did not understand the risks and that his arguments were frivolous; no written Faretta denial was entered.
A competency evaluation later found Williams competent; he pleaded guilty in 2018 to possession with intent to distribute in exchange for dismissal of other counts; the plea agreement did not mention Faretta and included a general appeal waiver with narrow exceptions.
Appellate counsel filed Anders motions and briefs; this Court ordered the Faretta transcript and identified as arguable whether a Faretta denial can be reviewed after a guilty plea and whether the district court erred.
Counsel’s opening brief largely argued only that the district court’s Faretta inquiry was proper and failed to challenge the voluntariness of Williams’s guilty plea or meaningfully address the circuit split; the government argued the plea waived the Faretta claim.
The Eleventh Circuit concluded Williams forfeited the only path to relief (a challenge to the plea’s voluntariness) and therefore affirmed, noting §2255 remains available to raise Faretta/involuntariness claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can an appellate court review a district court's denial of Faretta after a voluntary guilty plea?	Faretta error is structural and thus reviewable despite a subsequent plea	Majority of circuits hold a voluntary plea waives pre-plea claims; the plea forecloses Faretta review	Court declined to resolve split; issue forfeited because Williams did not challenge plea voluntariness; affirmed
Did the district court err in denying Williams’s request to proceed pro se?	Denial improper; Faretta protects self-representation	District court properly found Williams did not understand risks and advanced frivolous theories	Merits not reached due to forfeiture of the voluntariness challenge
Did appellate counsel preserve the Faretta claim and related relief?	Counsel argued Faretta was structural but failed to argue plea involuntariness in opening brief	Government relied on waiver/forfeiture by plea; urged majority approach	Court found counsel’s briefing inadequate on voluntariness, resulting in forfeiture of the only viable appellate argument; affirmed; §2255 available

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (recognizes the Sixth Amendment right to self-representation)
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (a voluntary guilty plea waives claims of constitutional error that occurred before the plea)
Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (identifies denial of self-representation as structural error)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures and briefing obligations when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
Class v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798 (2018) (distinguishes waivable case-related defects from non-waivable challenges to the statute of conviction)
United States v. Hernandez, 203 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2000) (Ninth Circuit holding that Faretta error can render a subsequent guilty plea involuntary)
United States v. Dewberry, 936 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2019) (Eighth Circuit joining majority view that a guilty plea waives a pre-plea Faretta claim)