United States v. Tollefson, No. 16-1903 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was sentenced to 227 months in prison in 2005 for his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and one count of violent crime in aid of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1959(a)(3). In 2015, defendant moved to reduce his sentence based upon amendment 782 to the sentencing guidelines, but the district court denied the motion. The court concluded that the district court's standing order appointing a public defender to represent all defendants who may be eligible to seek a sentence reduction under amendment 782 did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to proceed pro se; the court extended the Supreme Court's holding in Martinez and held that defendants do not have a due process right to self representation at postconviction sentence reduction proceedings; the district court is not required to entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party; the district court did not violate defendant's due process rights; and the court rejected defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant a sentence reduction where the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors; defendant's sentence was not procedurally unreasonable where the district court acknowledged defendant's postsentencing rehabilitation efforts; and the district court did not create a new sentence when it declined to modify his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Beam and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court's standing order appointing the Federal Public Defender to handle all motions for sentence reduction under Amendment 782 did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment rights; defendants do not have a due process right to self-representation in postconviction sentence reduction proceedings; the district court was not required to entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party; there is no right to counsel during a postconviction proceeding and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel necessarily fails; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a reduction of sentence after considering the 3553(a) factors, the offense conduct and defendant's post-sentencing accomplishments.
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.