United States v. Hantzis
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23030
9th Cir.2010Background
- Hantzis was tried in 2001 and convicted by a federal jury of possessing with intent to distribute and distributing at least 50 grams of methamphetamine, under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(A)(viii).
- Prior to federal proceedings, state arrests occurred in 1999 and 2000 for methamphetamine offenses, including manufacturing and possession for sale.
- During the case, Hantzis filed numerous pro se motions and repeatedly changed counsel, including at least four different attorneys and a self-representation decision in January 2005.
- In January 2005, after a Faretta colloquy, the district court allowed Hantzis to represent himself pro se; the court warned him about the hazards of self-representation.
- Sentencing occurred in June 2005, with the court imposing a mid-range term of 211 months’ imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $4,000,000 fine.
- The court declined to appoint new counsel for sentencing, despite Hantzis’s accusations against prior counsel and allegations made during the sentencing proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Faretta colloquy was adequate | Hantzis contends the Faretta colloquy was deficient and did not ensure a valid waiver | The government contends the colloquy satisfied Faretta requirements and the waiver was knowing and intelligent | Adequate; waiver was knowing and intelligent |
| Whether renewed Faretta warnings were required at later hearings | Hantzis argues warnings were needed before the evidentiary hearing and sentencing | No renewed warnings required absent substantial change in circumstances | No renewal required; no substantial change in circumstances |
| Whether the court erred in not appointing counsel at sentencing | Hantzis sought counsel at sentencing due to ongoing concerns about representation | Court properly denied appointment due to delay and conduct that hindered proceedings | No error; court did not improperly deprive right to counsel at sentencing |
| Whether Booker changed circumstances affecting Faretta waiver | Booker changes could affect understanding of penalties post-waiver | Booker did not substantially alter the penalties or charges; advisory guidelines did not require new waiver | Booker did not require renewed Faretta colloquy; waiver remained valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires awareness of dangers and disadvantages)
- United States v. Erskine, 355 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2004) (mixed question of law and fact on knowing waiver; Erskine standard)
- United States v. Gerritsen, 571 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2009) (look to record as a whole for knowing waiver)
- United States v. Kimmel, 672 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1982) (waiver validity considerations in prior proceedings)
- United States v. Springer, 51 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 1995) (renewal of Faretta warnings not required absent change in circumstances)
- White v. United States, 354 F.2d 22 (9th Cir. 1965) (waiver extends through proceedings unless narrowed scope is shown)
- Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2005) (mandatory vs advisory guidelines; impact on penalties)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (Booker remedial regime; advisory Guidelines)
- United States v. Meeks, 987 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1993) (dilatory conduct may justify proceeding pro se at sentencing)
- United States v. Kelm, 827 F.2d 1319 (9th Cir. 1987) (right to counsel concerns and delay considerations)