## Facts

- David Frederick Ely was indicted with two others for distributing and conspiring to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846.
- The co-defendants pleaded guilty and received substantial prison terms; Ely failed to appear and became a fugitive.
- A superseding indictment added two counts of failure to appear in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3150.
- After Ely was apprehended, the district court found him indigent and appointed attorney Brady under the court’s list/rotation appointment system.
- Ely asked the court to appoint a different attorney, Bartley, who was present in court, willing to accept the appointment, and had represented indigent defendants in the same court.
- The district judge declined, explaining that the court would not permit indigent defendants to select which lawyer would be appointed, and stated Brady was competent and experienced.
- Ely went to trial represented by Brady and was convicted on the drug and failure-to-appear counts.
- Ely received a sentence within the statutory limits and appealed, arguing (1) denial of his preferred appointed counsel violated the Sixth Amendment and (2) the sentence was an abuse of discretion because it was too severe.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment requires a district court to appoint an indigent defendant’s preferred attorney when the court has appointed a competent lawyer under a neutral rotation/list system.
2. Whether a federal court of appeals may disturb or reduce a sentence that is within statutory limits solely because it is harsh or disparate, absent illegality or reliance on improper factors.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held there was no Sixth Amendment violation because an indigent defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel, not a publicly funded attorney of personal choice, absent good cause for substitution.
- The court held the sentence was not reviewable for severity alone because it fell within statutory bounds and there was no showing it was imposed for unconstitutional or otherwise improper reasons.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment guarantees effective assistance of counsel; it does not give an indigent defendant an entitlement to compel appointment of a particular attorney at public expense.
- A district court may assign appointed counsel through neutral administrative methods (such as a list/rotation system) and may reject a defendant’s preferred appointee absent a conflict of interest, incompetence, or a serious breakdown in communication.
- A sentence within statutory limits is generally not subject to appellate revision merely because it is considered excessive or produces disparity; appellate intervention requires illegality or reliance on constitutionally impermissible or otherwise improper considerations.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s use of a neutral appointment system over an indigent defendant’s request for a specific lawyer and declined to review the length of a sentence that was lawful and not shown to rest on improper factors.


United States v. Ely, 719 F.2d 902 (7th Cir. 1983)