United States v. Francois
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7972
1st Cir.2013Background
- Francois was convicted after a three-day trial on multiple firearm and identity-related counts.
- A stolen identity (Efrain Baez) was used by Francois to purchase firearms in Rhode Island.
- Francois repeatedly complained about his court-appointed counsel and sought a third attorney; the court denied each request.
- Francois elected to proceed pro se but with standby counsel; Faretta warnings were given but not highly detailed.
- A flight instruction was given to the jury; Francois was later found guilty on all counts, and a 164-month total sentence imposed.
- The government conceded Counts 10-13 exceeded the statutory maximum; the court’s error necessitated remand for resentencing and review of the entire sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the denial of a third court-appointed attorney abuse of discretion? | Francois argues the court forced him into ineffective representation. | Francois contends the conflict with Dimitri prevented an adequate defense. | No abuse; court adequately assessed and declined replacement. |
| Was Francois' Faretta waiver intelligent and knowing given the warning provided? | Francois claims warning was insufficient to show an intelligent waiver. | Francois argues the warning failed to convey consequences of self-representation. | Waiver intelligent and knowing; record shows awareness and preparation. |
| Was the flight instruction properly supported by the record? | Francois challenges the instruction as misplaced given the evidence. | Flight evidence supported consciousness of guilt with adequate predicate. | Instruction proper; ample predicate supported the court's ruling. |
| Did the district court err in denying an evidentiary hearing on suppressions? | Francois sought an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes on suppression. | No right to an evidentiary hearing unless material facts are in dispute. | No abuse; no enforceable factual dispute requiring a hearing. |
| Did the sentence on Counts 10-13 exceed the statutory maximum, requiring remand for resentencing? | Francois contends enhanced 1028(b)(1) sentence was not supported by jury findings. | Government concedes error; proper maximum is 1028(b)(6). | Counts 10-13 sentence is plainly erroneous; remand for resentencing and interdependent reconfiguration of the sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Allen, 789 F.2d 90 (1st Cir. 1986) (three-factor Allen test for new counsel)
- United States v. Hicks, 531 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for counsel replacement)
- Kneeland, 148 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1998) (Faretta warning sufficiency and intelligent waiver analysis)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court 1975) (right to represent oneself; need for explicit warning)
- United States v. Proctor, 166 F.3d 396 (1st Cir. 1999) (right to counsel; court may force choice between appointed counsel or self-representation)
- United States v. LaBare, 191 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 1999) (considering defendant’s prior experience in determining intelligent waiver)
- Maynard v. Meachum, 545 F.2d 273 (1st Cir. 1976) (context of waiver; seriousness of charges and penalties to be understood)
- United States v. Staula, 80 F.3d 596 (1st Cir. 1996) (evidentiary hearing standard for suppression motions)
- D'Andrea, 648 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (no presumptive right to evidentiary hearing on suppression)
- Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (Supreme Court 2007) (jury-findings required for certain sentencing factors)
- Meadows, 571 F.3d 131 (1st Cir. 2009) (flight evidence admissibility in consciousness-of-guilt analysis)