United States v. Hill, No. 15-3090 (7th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography and was sentenced to 10 years in prison plus a fine and restitution and 5 years of supervised release. He filed a notice of appeal, but his federal public defender, asserting that the appeal is frivolous, filed an Anders brief asking to withdraw and advising that the defendant does not wish to challenge his guilty plea. The Seventh Circuit remanded for a determination that the defendant knowingly waived all challenges to the conditions of supervised release, noting that the conditions of release were not mentioned in the Anders brief. The trial judge did not recite the conditions at the sentencing hearing. Although the defendant said that he had read the proposed conditions and discussed them with his lawyer, the judge did not ask whether he was waiving possible objections. The Seventh Circuit noted the “vagueness of so many of the conditions of supervised release imposed in this case,” making it harder “for the defendant to determine what restrictions it actually imposes and whether any of them are so onerous that he should object.”
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 20, 2016.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.