United States v. Kenneth Harris, Jr.
669 F. App'x 807
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Kenneth D. Harris Jr. pleaded guilty to escaping from a halfway house and was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment plus 3 years’ supervised release.
- Harris had a prior 2011 conviction for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and had been transferred to a residential reentry center to serve the remainder of that sentence.
- While at the Centerstone Residential Reentry Center, Harris left without returning, tested positive for opioids at a hospital, stayed with his girlfriend, and did not surrender as instructed; he admitted his escape status to his probation officer but refused to return without assurances about medication and placement.
- Federal marshals arrested Harris at his girlfriend’s residence about a week after he failed to return.
- Appointed appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, asserting the appeal is frivolous; Harris opposed and raised several potential claims in a Rule 51(b) response.
- The Seventh Circuit limited its review to issues raised by counsel and Harris, found no nonfrivolous claims, granted counsel’s Anders motion, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Harris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive reasonableness of 21‑month sentence | Sentence within guideline range; presumptively reasonable | Sentence was high-end; judge acted to appear harsh | Affirmed — within 15–21 mo. range; no rebuttal of presumption |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | No nonfrivolous showing of deficient performance on record | Counsel rendered ineffective assistance at plea/sentencing | No potential claim on the record; such claims belong on collateral review (Massaro) |
| Failure to receive copy of presentence report | Court record shows Harris acknowledged receiving and reviewing the PSR at sentencing | Harris now contends he never received the PSR | Rejected — Harris told the court he had received and reviewed the report |
| Alleged improper motive to impose sentence to enable BOP treatment (Tapia) | Court may recommend treatment screening; cannot impose/lengthen sentence for rehabilitation | Court set 21 months to make Harris eligible for BOP treatment | Rejected — record shows only a recommendation for BOP screening; no evidence court lengthened sentence for rehabilitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural standard for counsel to withdraw on appeal when appeal is frivolous)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (within-Guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2003) (ineffective-assistance claims may be raised on collateral review)
- Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2011) (court may not impose or lengthen a sentence to promote rehabilitation; may recommend treatment)
- United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2014) (scope of Anders review)
- United States v. Womack, 732 F.3d 745 (7th Cir. 2013) (reasonableness review for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348 (7th Cir. 2012) (Rule 11/plea colloquy principles)
- United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2002) (plea voluntariness standards)
- United States v. Berg, 714 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 2013) (procedural posture for ineffective-assistance claims)
- United States v. Harris, 394 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 2005) (ineffective-assistance postconviction considerations)
- United States v. Rezin, 322 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2003) (ineffective-assistance claims arising from counsel who also represented defendant at sentencing)
- United States v. Lucas, 670 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2012) (sentencing court may recommend inmate participation in treatment programs)