United States v. Lillard

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to “be represented by an otherwise qualified attorney whom the defendant can afford to hire, or who is willing to represent the defendant even though he is without funds[.]” Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 624 (1989). An illegally excessive sentence violates a defendant’s substantial rights even if it runs concurrent with an equal or longer, valid sentence.

Defendant was serving a 196-month sentence for a prior conviction when his inmate trust account was seized and applied to a resulting restitution. He received a 36-month sentence after pleading guilty to the current conspiracy charge, to run concurrent with the previous sentence. Defendant claims the seizure violated his Sixth Amendment right because the funds were “untainted,” and that the sentence was illegally excessive. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to “be represented by an otherwise qualified attorney whom the defendant can afford to hire, or who is willing to represent the defendant even though he is without funds[.]” Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 624 (1989). An illegally excessive sentence violates a defendant’s substantial rights even if it runs concurrent with an equal or longer, valid sentence. The restitution order and lien gave the government a property interest in the Defendant's funds; therefore, he did not have the right to use that money for an attorney. The government’s property interest was not diminished by the fact that the funds were untainted. Because Defendant received a 36-month sentence for a conviction that carried a maximum penalty of 24 months, the sentence was illegal and warranted resentencing, regardless of the fact that it was to run concurrent with a valid, longer sentence. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part.