Opinion ID: 767535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Brown's Waiver

Text: 6 The government contends that Brown waived his right to appeal the calculation of his criminal history at his sentencing hearing. Waiver occurs when a defendant intentionally relinquishes a known right. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730-34 (1993); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938); United States v. Griffin, 84 F.3d 912, 924 (7th Cir. 1996). Waiver extinguishes the error and precludes appellate review. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 733. Brown believes that he did not waive his right to challenge the PSR, but merely forfeited it. Forfeiture is a doctrine related to waiver, but instead of precluding all appellate review, it permits plain error review. See id. at 730-34. One forfeits his rights by failing to assert them in a timely manner. See id. at 733. Where waiver is accomplished by intent, forfeiture comes about through neglect. 7 In United States v. Redding, 104 F.3d 96, 99 (7th Cir. 1996), a defendant waived his right to appeal his criminal history calculation when he filed no written objections and did not verbally object at his sentencing hearing. Counsel for the defendant in Redding stated to the sentencing judge, [a]t present, we accept for the purposes of this sentencing hearing the calculations regarding criminal history, although I believe that does not bind [the defendant] from possible collateral attack regarding these matters. Redding, 104 F.3d at 98 n.1. We held that the defendant waived his right to appeal despite the fact that the defendant had objected to the criminal history at a pre-sentencing hearing. Id. at 99. 8 Here, the government makes an even stronger case for waiver. Despite being provided advance notice of the PSR's contents and an opportunity to object before and during the sentencing hearing, Brown and his counsel did not. According to Brown's counsel, the defendant ha[s] not filed any objections. And I spoke with Mr. Brown this morning, and he indicated to me that we . . . have no objections to the presentence report. Accordingly, we find that the defendant knew he had a right to object to the calculation of his criminal history, knew the contents of the report and affirmatively decided not to object. This decision shows intent to waive the right, not ignorance or neglect of the right. The defendant therefore has waived his right to appeal the calculation of his criminal history.