US v. Walton: In 1994, Walton was convicted of multiple counts related to a conspiracy to distribute marijuana and sentenced to life in prison. “Shortly thereafter,” he was also convicted for jury tampering and given a consecutive 60-month sentence. Both sentences had terms of supervised release as well (13 years in total). In 2017, President Obama granted Walton clemency, reducing his total sentence to 387 months while “leaving intact and in effect that 13-year term of supervised release with all its conditions and all other components of the sentence.” Walton finished his term of incarceration in May 2021.
In February 2022, Walton was pulled over for speeding twice, with the second stop leading to the discovery of $26,000 in cash (“stuffed inside a teddy bear”) and a ledger that showed Walton was owed approximately $200,000 in drug proceeds. Walton explained that “he was collecting old drug debts . . . owed to him before he went to prison decades earlier.” He was convicted in Kansas for criminal transportation of drug proceeds, after which his home in West Virginia was searched, leading to the discovery of 13.5 pounds of marijuana. He was charged in West Virginia with possession with intent to distribute the marijuana.
Based on all this, Walton’s federal probation officer filed a motion to revoke his term of supervised release. Prior to the revocation hearing, Walton filed a pro se motion seeking to represent himself during his revocation proceedings. He also made substantive arguments as to the nature of the state offenses and whether the court had jurisdiction to revoke him. Walton’s appointed counsel also moved to withdraw because Walton would not speak to him. Newly appointed counsel appeared with Walton at the revocation hearing, but was unsure as to his role. Walton told the district court that he wanted to proceed “without counsel. Stand-by counsel, yes, sir” and the hearing proceeded in that manner. Walton admitted the violations, but renewed his jurisdictional argument. The district court held that it had jurisdiction, ordered Walton’s term of supervised release revoked, and imposed a sentence of 60 months in prison (in addition to additional terms of supervised release).
On appeal, a divided Fourth Circuit affirmed Walton’s revocation and sentence. First, the court addressed Walton’s jurisdictional argument – that his sentence was a “Presidentially commuted sentence, not a judicially imposed sentence.” The court disagreed, noting the language in the clemency order specifically keeping in place the terms and conditions of supervised release. Second, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Walton to proceed pro se during his revocation. That standard of review applied because there is no Sixth Amendment right to counsel during revocation proceedings. Here, the court held, Walton made clear (multiple times) that he wished to represent himself and explained the large amount of legal work he had done while incarcerated. Finally, the Court held that Walton’s sentence was not plainly unreasonable because he understood the alleged violations, the violations were graded correctly (even though the court recognized Walton failed to make a timely Campbell argument as to them), and that the district court adequately explained the basis for the sentence it imposed.
Judge Gregory concurred in part, but mostly dissented. Agreeing only that the court had jurisdiction over Walton’s revocation, Judge Gregory argued that Walton “did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to an attorney,” which was enough to reverse, but that the “supervised release revocation hearing was riddled with procedural errors” as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment