United States v. Larry Bell
21-1819
| 7th Cir. | Mar 28, 2022Background
- Larry D. Bell was serving supervised release after compassionate release from a federal sentence for distributing cocaine; probation filed multiple revocation petitions for repeated violations (failed check-ins, positive drug tests, missed therapy).
- A third supplemental petition alleged Bell violated an active protective order based on harassment and that he had dealt drugs “around” the protected party’s two sons; state authorities charged him with contacting a 13-year-old son in person and online.
- Bell waived a contested revocation hearing, admitted the government could prove the third supplemental petition’s allegations, and the district court revoked his supervised release.
- At sentencing the court misstated the record, describing Bell as having dealt drugs “to” the two children (rather than "around" them or merely contacting one child), then imposed 27 months’ imprisonment and 33 months’ supervised release.
- Bell’s appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders, but Bell pro se identified the misstatement as a nonfrivolous issue; the Seventh Circuit found a due-process problem and vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing and denying counsel’s Anders withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court relied on materially inaccurate information in sentencing (due process) | Court permissibly considered petition allegations and many supervision violations; misstatement was not outcome-determinative | Court misstated key fact — said Bell sold drugs to children — which is materially different from "dealing around" them and infected the sentence | Court held the misstatement was materially inaccurate, deprived Bell of due process, vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether Bell forfeited appellate review by not objecting at sentencing | Govt implied any objection was forfeited | Bell had no realistic opportunity to object before sentence was imposed; no forfeiture | Court applied de novo review (no forfeiture) |
| Whether counsel’s Anders motion could be granted | Counsel asserted the appeal was frivolous and sought to withdraw | Bell identified a nonfrivolous issue counsel did not address | Court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw and resolved the identified issue without requiring full merits briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Tucker v. United States, 404 U.S. 443 (establishes due-process right to sentencing on accurate information)
- Miller v. United States, 900 F.3d 509 (7th Cir.) (court must not rely on materially inaccurate facts at sentencing)
- Pennington v. United States, 908 F.3d 234 (7th Cir.) (no forfeiture where defendant had no chance to object; de novo review applies)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (sets procedure for appointed counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal)
- Eskridge v. United States, 445 F.3d 930 (7th Cir.) (application of Anders safeguards in supervised-release revocation appeals)
- Feterick v. United States, 872 F.3d 822 (7th Cir.) (erroneous factual assertions at sentencing can violate due process)
- Corona-Gonzalez v. United States, 628 F.3d 336 (7th Cir.) (same; courts must avoid sentencing on inaccurate information)