United States v. Ronnie Owen, 854 F.3d 536

Ronnie Lee Owen was on supervised release following federal convictions and faced combined revocation proceedings based on numerous alleged violations of release conditions.
Multiple revocation hearings were continued for medical and counsel-related issues; Owen fired retained counsel, sought new counsel, and ultimately was appointed standby counsel.
At the May 26 revocation hearing the district court offered three options: proceed with appointed counsel, proceed pro se, or proceed pro se with counsel as standby; the court accepted Owen’s decision to proceed pro se with standby counsel after denying further continuances and a motion to withdraw.
Owen participated in the hearing (cross-examining witnesses, making objections) but declined to testify or present a defense, claiming lack of opportunity to prepare and that he had been forced to proceed pro se.
The district court found multiple Grade-B violations, sentenced Owen to 24 months imprisonment, and Owen appealed solely arguing his waiver of counsel was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Owen voluntarily waived right to counsel at revocation hearing	Owen contends waiver was coerced—a Hobson’s choice between unprepared appointed counsel and self-representation	Court and government argue Owen was offered a real choice, warned in advance, and appointed competent standby counsel	Waiver was voluntary; no abuse of discretion in allowing pro se representation
Whether waiver was knowing and intelligent	Owen says court failed to elicit sufficient colloquy to ensure he understood risks and complexities	Court relied on totality of circumstances (warnings, prior experience, magistrate’s admonitions, presence of standby counsel)	Waiver was knowing and intelligent under totality of circumstances
Whether Sixth Amendment applies to revocation waiver	Owen framed it as Sixth Amendment right	Government contends Sixth Amendment does not apply in revocation proceedings; only statutory/due-process protections govern	Sixth Amendment inapplicable; only statutory right and due-process standards apply
Whether revocation hearing was fundamentally fair (due process)	Owen argues denial of counsel led to unfair hearing and prejudiced his defense	Government argues proceedings were fair, Owen understood allegations, and he actively participated	Court found hearing fundamentally fair and due process satisfied

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (revocation proceedings are not part of criminal prosecution; different procedural protections apply)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (discusses requirements for waiver of counsel in criminal cases; not strictly required in revocation context)
Hodges v. United States, 460 F.3d 646 (right to self-representation in revocation arises under Rule 32.1(b) and waiver assessed by totality of circumstances)
Manuel v. United States, 732 F.3d 283 (due-process requirements apply at revocation hearings given liberty interest; waiver assessed flexibly)
Boultinghouse v. United States, 784 F.3d 1163 (lists factors for assessing knowing and intelligent waiver in revocation context)
Mentzos v. United States, 462 F.3d 830 (rejects claim of unconstitutional Hobson’s choice where adequate representation option exists)
Berry v. Lockhart, 873 F.2d 1168 (requests for new counsel may be dilatory; substitution within trial court discretion)
Eads v. United States, 729 F.3d 769 (consideration of factors relevant to determining voluntariness of self-representation)