United States v. Luckett

Order Tina Luckett pled guilty to making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The district court accepted the plea, and sentenced her to five years of probation and ordered her to make restitution of $2,679.00. In 1993, the district court revoked her probation after a hearing for various violations and sentenced her to three years of incarceration. Luckett's counsel, believing an appeal in this case to be frivolous, has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967); United States v. Edwards, 777 F.2d 364 (7th Cir. 1985); see Cir. R. 51(a). Luckett received notice of counsel's motion, Cir. R. 51(a), but has not filed a response. After an independent review, we conclude that there are no non-frivolous issues. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. Counsel submits several potential issues for appeal. The first potential issue is whether there was sufficient evidence before the district court to revoke Luckett's probation. A second issue, closely tied to the first, is whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking her probation. United States v. Bennett, 955 F.2d 23, 24 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 L. Ed. 2d 590, 112 S. Ct. 2970 (1992) (decision regarding probation violations are reviewed for an abuse of discretion). There is more than ample evidence that Luckett violated several terms of her probation. Luckett failed to submit numerous monthly reports on time, was not at home for three scheduled home visits by a probation officer, failed to appear for appointments with her probation officer on several occasions, and failed to provide the required number of urine samples for drug testing. Sufficient evidence exists in the record for a rational trier of fact to find Luckett violated more than one of the conditions of her probation. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking her probation.