7th Circuit rules denial of new counsel held error.

Byline: David Ziemer

It was error to proceed with sentencing after the defendant's appointed attorney said that he was not prepared and his client wanted a new attorney, the Seventh Circuit held on Jan. 10.

Raymond Ryals was charged in Wisconsin federal court after accepting $50 for helping to arrange the sale of an ounce of crack cocaine from a crack dealer to a confidential informant.

He was found guilty at trial, and three weeks prior to sentencing, his appointed attorney moved to withdraw, stating that Ryals wanted different counsel to represent him at sentencing. The attorney filed no objections to the presentence report.

Client Lacked Confidence

At the sentencing hearing, counsel informed the court that Ryals believed he made inappropriate choices during the trial, lacked confidence in him, and did not want him to have anything more to do with the case.

The court asked counsel if he was able to adequately represent Ryals at sentencing that afternoon, and counsel stated, I say no, Your Honor, because I know expressly that he doesn't want me to represent him.

Rather than follow up on this statement, the court then turned to Ryals, who said, I don't want him representing me, because he didn't do a lot of things and he done [sic] a lot of things and let a lot of things be done that I would like to be looked into.

Nevertheless, the court proceeded with sentencing. Ryals made several sentencing arguments, most challenging his criminal history.

Before sentencing, Ryals stated, there was [sic] a lot of things that I think I need to talk to another attorney about that went on in this and went on at trial, Your Honor. I mean, and if I proceed with sentencing I would like to just proceed without an attorney at all.

His counsel made minimal argument, requesting a sentence within the guideline range (360 months to life), only reminding the court that it had the authority under the advisory to impose a lower sentence. Counsel noted that the offense occurred only two months after Ryals had been released from prison on another case.

365-Month Sentence

District Court Judge John C. Shabaz sentenced Ryals to 365 months, and Ryals appealed.

In a decision by Judge Ann Claire Williams, the Seventh Circuit reversed.

The court concluded that three factors weighed in favor of finding that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for new counsel: (1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) whether the district court conducted an adequate...