United States v. Hubert Davenport
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10372
7th Cir.2013Background
- Davenport, a felon on probation, was arrested for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after bar incident.
- He pleaded guilty and was sentenced as an armed career criminal to 192 months’ imprisonment under § 924(e).
- Davenport filed a notice of appeal, but counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California; Davenport did not respond.
- Court analyzes whether the Anders motion is frivolous, focusing on voluntariness of the guilty plea and the sentence.
- District court conducted a Rule 11 plea colloquy; one omission concerned Davenport’s right to testify, but not plain error given the record.
- District court calculated a guidelines range of 188–235 months, applied § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Davenport to 192 months, within the range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can Davenport challenge the guilty-plea voluntariness? | Davenport's voluntariness challenge is potentially frivolous. | Davenport (via Anders) contends plea may be involuntary due to omissions. | Frivolous; no plain error; Rule 11 substantial compliance; affirm |
| Is Davenport’s within-guidelines sentence reviewable as non-frivolous? | Sentence is within-range and procedurally sound; arguments lack merit. | Presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence challenges. | Frivolous; district court properly calculated guidelines and sentenced within range |
Key Cases Cited
- Konczak v. United States, 683 F.3d 348 (7th Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard for plea voluntariness where plea colloquy noncompliance)
- Schuh v. United States, 289 F.3d 968 (7th Cir. 2002) (frivolousness removal under Anders standard; deferential review)
- Vonn v. United States, 535 U.S. 55 (U.S. 2002) (plain-error review requires error to affect substantial rights and fairness)
- Loutos v. United States, 383 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2004) (harmlessness of minor Rule 11 omissions in plea colloquy)
- Driver v. United States, 242 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2001) (omissions in plea colloquy; harmless error if not affecting conviction)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)
- Foster v. United States, 652 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2011) (guidelines calculation and age of priors; ACCA considerations)
- Wright v. United States, 48 F.3d 254 (7th Cir. 1995) (age of convictions and applicability under ACCA)
- Vitrano v. United States, 405 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2005) (restoration-of-rights issues in sentencing considerations)
- Buchmeier v. United States, 581 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2009) (restoration of voting rights in prior-convict considerations)
- United States v. Jumah, 599 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2010) (confirms plain-error review standards in sentencing context)
- United States v. Corona-Gonzalez, 628 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2010) (cautionary notes on plea-colloquy omissions)