United States v. Spangle
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23798
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Spangle pled guilty in 1996 to bank robbery and received 57 months plus 3 years of supervised release.
- He initially failed to report to his probation officer after release in 2001, leading to revocation hearings and further imprisonment.
- In 2003 he sent threatening letters to his former probation officer and to a judge; he was later convicted of threatening communications in 2004.
- He was released again in 2009 with a monitoring device; he absconded, removed the device, and was arrested far from his supervisory residence.
- A search of his car after arrest revealed personal information about a probation officer, a prosecutor, and judges; no weapon was found.
- At sentencing in 2009 Spangle sought to proceed pro se; the court denied, then sentenced him to 24 months with supervised release, and judgment followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of pro se requests violated the Sixth Amendment | Spangle contends denials violated Faretta and his right to self-representation. | Government argues Sixth Amendment not applicable to supervised-release proceedings; any error harmless. | Sixth Amendment inapplicable; denial deemed harmless error. |
| Whether the district judge should have recused under § 455 | Spangle argues personal information about the judge warranted recusal. | Government asserts no plain error; no objective/subjective bias shown. | No plain error; judge did not err in not recusing. |
| Whether the sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable | Spangle asserts misapplication of facts and unreasonable sentence. | Government agrees with standard; court properly weighed 3553(a) factors and supported variance. | Sentence affirmed; not clearly erroneous and not substantively unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation; not automatic at sentencing when not applicable)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (parole/probation revocation rights do not mirror criminal trial)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (revocation of parole does not involve full criminal due process)
- Stocks, 104 F.3d 308 (9th Cir. 1997) (Sixth Amendment applicability to probation/revocation contexts)
- Holland, 519 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2008) (objective/subjective § 455 recusal framework)
- Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (clear error standard for factual findings on appeal)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review for sentences; defer to district court)
- Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentencing in revocation context)
- Edwards, 595 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (variance/departure considerations under 3553(a))
- Maness, 566 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2009) (harmless-error analysis for improper self-representation rulings)