United States v. Sanders
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22322
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Sanders was indicted in an 11-count federal narcotics conspiracy; he pleaded guilty to one count involving 1,000+ kg of marijuana and was sentenced to 120 months (mandatory minimum).
- He cycled through multiple court-appointed attorneys (Harris, Busbee, Ansley) and repeatedly sought to dismiss counsel; early requests asked for new counsel rather than explicitly to proceed pro se.
- About one month before sentencing, Sanders filed a clear written petition invoking Faretta and stating he wished to represent himself; no ruling on that petition was made before sentencing.
- At the sentencing hearing the court allowed Sanders to speak for himself but repeatedly required him to consult and act through Ansley, describing Ansley as standby counsel and initially denying Ansley’s withdrawal.
- Sanders also raised objections about not receiving the presentence report (PSR) in time; the court adopted the mandatory minimum sentence after a guidelines discussion.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction (guilty plea voluntary) but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court denied Sanders his right to self-representation (Faretta error).
Issues
| Issue | Sanders' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction | Indictment invalid | Indictment properly charged federal offense | Court had jurisdiction; indictment sufficient |
| Voluntariness of guilty plea | Plea coerced by threats/promises; didn’t understand charges | Plea colloquy satisfied Rule 11; no coercion | Plea was voluntary; affirmed under plain-error review |
| Right to self-representation (Faretta) | Made clear, written, timely request to proceed pro se; court forced counsel on him | Request was equivocal or delay tactic; court appropriately managed proceedings | Violation of Faretta; reversible error requiring resentencing |
| Timely receipt of PSR | Did not receive PSR 35 days before sentencing, impairing preparation | Issue need not be reached because Faretta error dispositive | Court did not decide PSR timeliness because self-representation error controlled |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (establishes Sixth Amendment right to self-representation and waiver standards)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error standard requires showing an obvious error affecting substantial rights)
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty but for the error)
- United States v. Cano, 519 F.3d 512 (impermissible denial of Faretta right is not harmless and requires reversal)
- United States v. Long, 597 F.3d 720 (court may deny pro se request if used to delay or obstruct proceedings)