United States v. Eldon Philip Anderson, No. 16-2251 (8th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Gruender, Circuit Judges Criminal case - Sentencing. The Sixth Amendment, which grants a defendant the right to counsel, does not apply to revocation-of-supervised-release proceedings;in any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's waiver of his right to counsel. [ September 22, 2016

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2251 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Eldon Philip Anderson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: September 20, 2016 Filed: September 23, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Eldon Philip Anderson appeals following the district court’s1 revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a 6-month sentence. Mr. Anderson’s sole 1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. argument on appeal is that the district court committed a Sixth Amendment error by permitting him to waive his fundamental right to counsel without giving him the warnings required by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). We disagree. The Sixth Amendment does not apply here. See United States v. Boultinghouse, 784 F.3d 1163, 1171 (7th Cir. 2015) (Sixth Amendment, which grants defendant right to assistance of counsel at all critical stages of criminal proceeding, does not apply in hearing convened to decide if supervised release should be revoked). Further, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting Mr. Anderson’s waiver of his right to counsel in the revocation proceeding, as the totality of the circumstances reflect that he made a knowing and voluntary choice to proceed on his own. See id. at 1171-72. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-

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.