United States v. Palo Brown
665 F. App'x 550
7th Cir.2016Background
- Palo Brown and codefendants committed armed robberies of a gas station and two jewelry stores, and attempted another; Brown also attempted to carjack a woman while fleeing.
- Brown pleaded guilty to Hobbs Act conspiracy, brandishing a firearm in a crime of violence (statutory minimum term), and attempted carjacking.
- At sentencing the district court denied Brown’s pro se motion to withdraw his guilty pleas alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and sentenced him to consecutive terms totaling 240 + 84 + 52 months.
- Appointed appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, asserting the appeal was frivolous; Brown did not respond to the court’s invitation to reply.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed the limited issues raised by counsel and concluded that challenges to the plea, the motion to withdraw, and the leadership-role enhancement would be frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of plea colloquy under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 | Plea colloquy satisfied Rule 11; omissions were harmless | Brown contended plea was defective (and sought to preserve challenge) | Court: Omissions (perjury warning, right to counsel at trial, right to persist in plea) were harmless or otherwise covered; plea valid |
| Motion to withdraw guilty plea (ineffective assistance) | Government: District court properly rejected claim | Brown: Counsel lied about and failed to pursue potential defenses and investigation | Court: Denial not an abuse — district court relied on sworn Rule 11 statements, found alleged theories frivolous, and emphasized counsel’s sound plea strategy |
| Leadership-role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 | Government: Enhancement supported by cooperating witness testimony | Brown: All participants were equal and no leadership role warranted | Court: Enhancement proper — sentencing court credited cooperator that Brown was the “brains,” organized roles, fenced proceeds |
| Adequacy of Anders procedure by appellate counsel | Appellate counsel submitted thorough Anders brief addressing likely issues | Brown: (no response / not shown to object to counsel’s consultation) | Court: Counsel should have consulted Brown but omission harmless; granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for appointed counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348 (7th Cir. 2012) (counsel should consult defendant before filing Anders motion)
- United States v. Patterson, 576 F.3d 431 (7th Cir. 2009) (district courts may rely on Rule 11 colloquy to reject plea-withdrawal claims)
- United States v. Peleti, 576 F.3d 377 (7th Cir. 2009) (plea negotiations and counsel’s decision to pursue a plea can be reasonable in light of overwhelming evidence)
- United States v. Isom, 635 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2011) (sentencing court may credit uncorroborated testimony of a self-interested coconspirator)
- United States v. Grigsby, 692 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2012) (leadership-role enhancement can rest on coconspirator testimony describing planning, supervision, and division of proceeds)
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (grand jury indictment not invalidated by character of grand jury evidence)