United States v. Williams

• Decision Date: 30 March 2022
• Docket Number: No. 18-13890,18-13890
• Citation: 29 F.4th 1306
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elbert Lee WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

29 F.4th 1306

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Elbert Lee WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-13890

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed March 30, 2022

Huiju Jeon, U.S. Attorney's Office, San Antonio, TX, Michelle Lee Schieber, U.S. Attorney Service - Middle District of Georgia, U.S. Attorney's Office, Macon, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jonathan Dodson, Erin Leigh Pinder, Christina Lee Hunt, Federal Public Defender's Office, Macon, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Jordan, Jill Pryor, and Tjoflat, Circuit Judges.

Tjoflat, Circuit Judge:

Elbert Lee Williams appeals his conviction by guilty plea for intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base under 21 U.S.C § 841(a)(1). Williams alleges that the District Court improperly denied his right to self-representation under Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). However, despite (1) the existence of a circuit split on whether a voluntary guilty plea waives the right to self-representation on appeal and (2) our own order to Williams's appellate counsel instructing her to brief whether this Court can review a denial of the right to self-representation following a guilty plea, Williams's appellate counsel failed to make any argument in the opening brief that even approached the applicable legal question. Accordingly, Williams has forfeited any argument under which we may grant relief in this appeal, and so we must affirm the District Court.

I.

A.

Williams is a 54-year-old man who withdrew from high school prior to completing the tenth grade; although capable of reading and writing, he has no other formal education. From 1988 to 1990, Williams committed a variety of offenses such as theft, burglary, and breaking into a car. He pled guilty with the assistance of counsel to each of these charges and received probation and ninety days confinement. Over the course of 1991, Williams was charged with and, with the assistance of counsel, subsequently pled guilty to burglary, three counts of cocaine distribution, and first-degree arson. For these crimes, he received a concurrent sentence of twenty years. Williams remained in custody from 1991 until December 2004, when he was paroled; however, he subsequently had his parole revoked in August 2005 after being found in possession of cocaine. Williams was paroled again in 2007, only to shortly thereafter be found driving under the influence of alcohol and in possession of cocaine. He pled guilty to these new offenses with the assistance of counsel and received a thirty-year sentence, of which he was to serve seven years in prison and the balance on probation. Williams was released on probation on April 27, 2015.

On April 13, 2016, in the instant case, police officers applied for and were granted a search warrant for the house where Williams was then located. During the subsequent search, Williams was found in a bedroom of that house in possession of 34.6 grams of powder cocaine, 11 grams of crack cocaine, .80 grams of marijuana, $1,740 cash, and a handgun. On November 9, 2016, Williams was charged with four counts: (1) possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, (2) possession of marijuana, (3) felon in possession of a firearm, and (4) possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. He was arrested, appointed counsel, then released on bail.

Despite having been appointed counsel, Williams began making numerous pro se motions. To the extent William's pro se motions were intelligible, they put forth legal arguments common to the sovereign citizen movement. The FBI has provided the following description of sovereign citizen ideology:

Sovereign citizens believe the USG [United States Government] is illegitimate and has drifted away from the true intent of the Constitution. As a result, the USG is not perceived to be acting in the interest of the American people. These groups generally do not adhere to federal, state, or local laws. Some sovereign citizens believe federal and state officials have no real authority and will only recognize the local sheriff's department as the only legitimate government official. Other law enforcement officials are viewed as being oppressive and illegitimate.

Individuals who adhere to this ideology believe their status as a sovereign citizen exempts them from US laws and the US tax system ... Sovereign citizens view the USG as bankrupt and without tangible assets; therefore, the USG is believed to use citizens to back US currency. Sovereign citizens believe the USG operates solely on a credit system using American citizens as collateral.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Sovereign Citizens: An Introduction for Law Enforcement" 3 (Nov. 2010), https://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-SovereignCitizens.pdf. Sovereign citizens often target incarcerated individuals for recruitment and training. Id. at 13. As happened here, sovereign citizens have been known to challenge the jurisdiction of district courts to try criminal cases by asserting that the federal government has no authority over a sovereign citizen. See United States v. Benabe , 654 F.3d 753, 766–67 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting that courts have "repeatedly rejected" sovereign citizens’ "theories of individual sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk").

Williams informed District Judge Marc T. Treadwell that he had "fired" his attorney, Catherine Williams (no relation), on April 10, 2017, at a pretrial hearing. Consequently, Judge Treadwell set a Faretta hearing for April 12 to determine whether Williams could knowingly and intelligently decide to represent himself. Between April 10 and April 12, Judge Treadwell denied several of Williams's pro se motions and Williams filed several more.

The Faretta hearing began with a brief discussion about the motions filed and denied in the intervening days and segued into Judge Treadwell informing Williams of the purpose of a Faretta hearing. Judge Treadwell then stated that:

The problem is I cannot allow you to represent yourself unless you understand that you have to abide by the rules and law of this Court. And everything that you have done so far illustrates to me that you do not understand that.

Now I'm going to ask you some questions to see if it's appropriate for you to represent yourself. It seems to me very unlikely that it is appropriate given thus far your apparent inability to understand that if you do represent yourself you've got to abide by the rules of the Court and the laws of Congress and the Constitution.

Judge Treadwell then reminded Williams of the charges against him and inquired about the source of Williams's sovereign citizen theories. Williams replied that he had picked up his theories while studying with other inmates during his time incarcerated. Williams continued by comparing his legal situation to drowning, stating that "[a] drowning man will reach for a straw just to survive." Judge Treadwell replied that he understood that Williams felt desperate, stating:

And everything that you're telling me so far is you are – you may think you are helping yourself, but you are absolutely intent on ruining any chance you have of defending yourself against these charges by urging bogus, unsubstantiated, illogical[ ] arguments.

And that's the reason that it's going to be extremely difficult for me to find that you are knowingly, intelligently waiving your right to counsel because you may think you are reaching for something as a drowning man when you do that, but all you're reaching for is a lead weight that's going to take you to the bottom if you continue on the path that you are on right now.

Williams then inquired about the district court's subject matter jurisdiction and questioned how the "United States of America" could prosecute him as the United States is not a person. Judge Treadwell briefly explained, then stated:

Well, I think we're pretty quickly coming to the conclusion that I have to reach which is, Mr. Williams clearly does not understand the risk of him representing himself.

I cannot find that he knowingly and intelligently has made a decision to represent himself. Clearly his decision is based upon what somebody has told him, as he has described it about what the law is or should be, and it is completely separated from reality.

Now, how can a man, who is operating under that illusion – illusion in the sense that he cannot accept what the law is and rather urges completely unsubstantiated versions of the law, I guess you would call it, in his defense. It's a sure fire guarantee of a conviction, as best I can tell.

Judge Treadwell then questioned Williams about whether he understood that he would have to abide by the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and reiterated that William's theories had no basis in law or fact. Williams replied with a long statement explaining his prior legal troubles, the difficulty he has had with law enforcement and lawyers, and his skepticism towards the criminal judicial system. Williams summed up his position by stating "[s]o if I'm going to take my life and just give it away why shouldn't I do it myself?"

Following Williams's statement, Judge Treadwell segued into asking Williams about his mental health. Williams explained that he had been diagnosed with depression and medicated while incarcerated, but that while outside prison he relied only on "[g]oing to church and dealing with the Lord" for treatment.

Judge Treadwell then asked how Williams saw his trial "unfolding" in this case, and Williams replied that he intended to make the same sovereign citizen arguments ("constitutional restraint and fraud subject matter jurisdiction") at trial. Judge Treadwell explained that the jury would decide only questions of fact and that since Williams's arguments were questions of law, Williams would be unable to discuss his arguments at trial once they were denied, although he could appeal that decision after trial. Williams replied, ...