United States v. Quince Wright
20-3306
| 7th Cir. | Jul 16, 2021Background
- Wright served 188 months for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and began a three‑year term of supervised release.
- During supervision he failed multiple drug tests and pleaded guilty in state court to third‑degree sexual assault (Wisconsin), prompting the Government to seek revocation.
- At the revocation hearing Wright admitted violations: a Grade A violation (a new felony crime of violence) and several Grade C drug violations.
- The district court revoked supervised release, initially imposed 27 months (within the Guidelines range) but corrected the sentence to the 24‑month statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
- Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, asserting the appeal is frivolous and moved to withdraw; Wright did not file a response.
- The Seventh Circuit concluded no nonfrivolous issues exist, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of revocation | Wright could challenge revocation or withdraw admissions | Wright admitted violations; Gov. argued preponderance satisfied | Revocation proper; admissions and evidence meet preponderance standard |
| Sufficiency of proof of violations | Wright could contest factual basis for Grade A/C violations | Admissions and record support violations | Court found violations proven by preponderance; challenge would be pointless |
| Sentence length/statutory maximum | Wright could argue sentence exceeded allowable range | Govt. argued Guidelines range and statutory max control | District court corrected error; 24‑month statutory max governs and is lawful |
| Substantive reasonableness of 24‑month term | Wright could claim sentence was substantively unreasonable | Govt. relied on Guidelines range and § 3553(a) factors cited by court | 24‑month sentence within range; presumption of reasonableness stands and was not rebutted |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (no unqualified right to appointed counsel on supervised‑release appeal)
- United States v. Brown, 823 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2016) (Seventh Circuit follows Anders practice even where Gagnon applies)
- United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2014) (appellate review focuses on issues counsel discusses in Anders brief)
- United States v. Wheeler, 814 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2016) (counsel should state whether defendant wants to challenge revocation or withdraw admissions)
- United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2002) (guidance on counsel’s duties in Anders context)
- United States v. Flagg, 481 F.3d 946 (7th Cir. 2007) (if violation proven by preponderance, revocation challenge is futile)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (within‑Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable)
- United States v. Raney, 842 F.3d 1041 (7th Cir. 2016) (sentencing explanation need only show consideration of § 3553(a) factors)