Court Error – Sentence Modification – Rule 11(b)

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Franshon Stapleton

Case No.: 21-1194

Officials: Sykes, Chief Judge, and Hamilton and Brennan, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Court Error – Sentence Modification – Rule 11(b)

Stapleton lured women into prostitution and exploited them for his financial benefit using threats, force, and other forms of coercion. An anonymous tip led to his arrest, and a 16-count indictment for sex-trafficking crimes followed. Stapleton claimed the police had fabricated the anonymous tip and tampered with his cellphone. He wanted his counsel to pursue these theories. The district court appointed a succession of attorneys to represent him, but he was constantly at odds with them regarding his police-misconduct claims. The judge denied his motion to suppress the evidence derived from the anonymous tip. At that point Stapleton insisted on representing himself.

The judge granted Stapleton’s desire to represent himself and appointed a standby attorney. About a month before trial, Stapleton moved for an expert to investigate his claim that the police had tampered with his phone. The judge denied the motion.

The case then proceeded to trial.  Stapleton announced that he would conditionally plead guilty to all charges, reserving the right to challenge the suppression ruling. The judge conducted a Rule 11(b) colloquy and accepted Stapleton’s guilty pleas on all counts. Before sentencing, however, Stapleton moved to withdraw his pleas. The judge however imposed a sentence of life. Stapleton argues that his guilty pleas were invalid because he did not have counsel and was confused about his appellate rights during the plea colloquy. He also challenges the denial of his motion for a court funded expert to investigate his phone-tampering claim.

Stapleton has not identified an error in the judge’s denial of his plea-withdrawal motions.

In the expert motion. Stapleton’s motion contained several unresolved unknowns. The judge did not abuse his discretion in denying it.

Affirmed.

Decided 12/27/22

Full Text