United States v. Kendale Tatum
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14855
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to using a telephone to facilitate cocaine possession with intent to distribute; sentenced to 24 months on probation with 18 conditions.
- Probation officer moved to revoke probation after multiple violations including license issues and cocaine-positive urine tests.
- Judge stated that if violations occurred, 24 months on probation would become 24 months in prison, effectively promising a prison term for violations.
- At the revocation hearing, defendant admitted violations; judge sentenced to 24 months’ custody, citing the earlier statement and continued violations.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief arguing no nonfrivolous ground for appeal; defendant did not respond.
- Court notes both the probation-revocation sentence was within statutory maximum and the guideline range for probation violations would have been 7–13 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is predetermination of punishment for probation violations improper? | Probationer argues the judge fixed a punishment in advance. | State argues no fixed penalty issue since revocation and sentence depend on violations. | Predetermination improper; court disapproves but keeps the sentence pending merits briefing. |
| Was the 24-month probation-revocation sentence lawful given the statutory maximum? | Sentence aligns with maximum for revocation. | Sentence within statutory maximum and reasonable under circumstances. | Yes, the 24-month sentence is lawful. |
| Should the Anders motion be granted or denied pending merits briefing? | Frivolous grounds not present; appeal not substantial. | Anders standard requires dismissal only if no nonfrivolous issues. | Anders motion denied; case remanded for merits briefing. |
| Does Reyna-style probation warning create a contractual constraint on sentencing? | Warnings could be treated as binding agreement to impose specific term. | Warnings not contractual; no binding agreement. | Not controlling authority; disapproved predetermination concept. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tabb, 125 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 1997) (Anders procedure requires nonfrivolous grounds; court may withdraw)
- United States v. Wagner, 103 F.3d 551 (7th Cir. 1996) (Anders procedure followed when no nonfrivolous appeal)
- United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc; warning not a contract to impose consequences)