United States v. Mark Evans
559 F. App'x 475
6th Cir.2014Background
- Evans was convicted in the Western District of Texas in 1997 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine.
- While serving that sentence at FCI Memphis, Evans and others engaged in a tobacco/marijuana smuggling operation within the prison.
- Evans and others were later indicted for marijuana distribution conspiracy; Evans initially requested court-appointed counsel and was represented by Juni Ganguli.
- In 2012, after a marijuana conviction, Evans filed pro se motions challenging counsel and requesting self-representation; the district court denied new counsel requests and later denied self-representation.
- In early 2013, the district court sentenced Evans (represented by Ganguli) and attributed about 80 pounds of marijuana to him; total offense level was 24, criminal history III, guideline range 63–78 months; Evans received 78 months’ imprisonment plus four years of supervised release, to run consecutively to Texas sentence.
- The sentence on appeal criticized: (a) the consecutive supervised-release term violates § 3624(e); (b) the district court’s handling of Evans’s request for self-representation; the court vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive supervised release violates § 3624(e) | Evans | United States | Consecutive supervised-release term vacated; remanded |
| Denial of right to self-representation at sentencing | Evans | United States | Faretta hearing required; reversal if not conducted |
| Whether the error is structural or harmless | Evans | United States | Proceedings remanded for Faretta inquiry; court does not conclude structural harmless error |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court 1975) (right to self-representation; two-step Faretta inquiry)
- Cromer v. United States, 389 F.3d 662 (6th Cir. 2004) (Faretta waiver inquiry standard)
- McBride v. United States, 362 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 2004) (model inquiry for Faretta hearing; clear waiver requirements)
- Jones v. United States, 489 F.3d 243 (6th Cir. 2007) (right to self-representation at sentencing; scope and remedies)
- Shanklin v. United States, 193 F. App’x 385 (5th Cir. 2006) (analysis of self-representation requests at sentencing)
- Cano v. United States, 519 F.3d 512 (5th Cir. 2008) (structural-error framework for Faretta issues)
- Manthey v. United States, 92 F.App’x 291 (6th Cir. 2004) (single off-the-cuff assertion not unequivocal)
- Williams v. United States, 641 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2011) (standard de novo/plain-error review for self-representation)
- United States v. Conder, 423 F.2d 904 (6th Cir. 1970) (mutual exclusivity of right to counsel and self-representation)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (Supreme Court 1991) (structural-error concept limited to certain defects)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (Supreme Court 2010) (structural-error framework applicable to serious constitutional errors)