United States v. Shenita Simmons
679 F. App'x 509
7th Cir.2017Background
- In 2014 Shenita Simmons pleaded guilty to making a false statement on a gun-purchase form (18 U.S.C. § 1001) after buying a handgun for a felon; district court sentenced her to 3 years’ probation (guidelines range 10–16 months).
- Eighteen months into probation her officer reported multiple violations including possession/use of cocaine and marijuana, lying to the officer about drug use, and associating with a felon; Simmons did not contest the allegations.
- By statute Simmons’ drug possession alone required revocation and potential imprisonment; the district court revoked probation but delayed punishment to let her demonstrate reform.
- Simmons committed further misconduct during the delay; the court found supervised release pointless, calculated a post-revocation guidelines range of 4–10 months (U.S.S.G. ch.7, pt. B), and imposed a 10-month prison term.
- Simmons appealed; appointed counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, arguing no nonfrivolous issues. The court invited Simmons to respond; she did not. The Seventh Circuit granted counsel’s motion and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to counsel at probation-revocation proceedings | Government: No constitutional right to counsel where defendant admits violations and offers no complex mitigation | Simmons implicitly concedes violations and does not assert need for counsel | Court: No constitutional right to counsel here; Anders safeguards applied as practice, appeal invited comment but none made |
| Classification of violations as Grade B (affecting revocation range) | Government: Lying to a probation officer can be a §1001 felony; cocaine possession also qualifies as felony under Illinois law | Simmons could challenge whether §1001(b) exception (statements in judicial proceedings) shields lies to PO, making them nonfelony | Court: Even if §1001(b) issue unresolved, Illinois cocaine possession is a felony punishable >1 year, so Grade B classification stands; misclassification argument would be frivolous |
| Reasonableness of 10-month sentence after revocation | Government: §3553(a) factors considered; repeated violations and deception justify 10 months | Simmons: Displeased with length; emphasized minimal history, caregiving role, work, and mitigating circumstances | Court: Judge reasonably weighed mitigating and aggravating factors; 10 months not unreasonable |
| Counsel’s withdrawal under Anders | Government counsel: No nonfrivolous appellate issues; seeks permission to withdraw | Simmons: Did not respond to invitation to comment | Court: Granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to withdraw when appeal appears frivolous)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (right to counsel at probation revocation depends on complexity and defendant's position)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (Anders safeguards not required where counsel’s assistance is not constitutionally mandated)
- United States v. Tatum, 760 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2014) (maximum penalties at initial sentencing apply at revocation)
- United States v. Grimes, 54 F.3d 489 (8th Cir. 1995) (assumed lying to probation officer can violate §1001)
- United States v. Horvath, 492 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2007) (§1001(b) may exempt some statements made to probation officers in preparing judicial documents)
- United States v. Vreeland, 684 F.3d 653 (6th Cir. 2012) (monitoring on supervised release is not a judicial proceeding; §1001(b) inapplicable)
- United States v. Manning, 526 F.3d 611 (10th Cir. 2008) (§1001(b) does not exempt false statements to probation officers)
- United States v. Wheaton, 610 F.3d 389 (7th Cir. 2010) (limits on challenging admissions to alleged violations)
- United States v. Eskridge, 445 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2006) (same principles as to supervised-release revocations)