United States v. Lennie Perry

── United States v. Lennie Perry ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-2327 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LENNIE PERRY, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 18 CR 703 — Edmond E. Chang, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED APRIL 16, 2025 — DECIDED APRIL 13, 2026 ____________________ Before SYKES, ST. EVE, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges. SYKES, Circuit Judge. In the three years from his indictment to trial on sex-trafficking charges, Lennie Perry refused to cooperate with five court-appointed lawyers and twice in- voked his right to represent himself. Before each round of self- representation, the district judge conducted a comprehensive hearing confirming that Perry understood the consequences of waiving his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See Faretta 2 No. 24-2327 v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). At the second of these hear- ings, the judge warned Perry that this was the end of the line: a sixth attorney would not be appointed. Perry said he under- stood and continued to insist on representing himself. When the trial started, Perry changed his mind again and requested a lawyer. The judge said no, just as he had warned. The jury convicted Perry as charged. He is serving a lengthy prison term. On appeal Perry challenges the denial of his midtrial mo- tion for a sixth court-appointed lawyer. He argues that the judge was required to consider his motives for changing his mind and assess the probable duration of delay. But the law imposes no such duty. When a defendant repeatedly refuses to cooperate with appointed counsel, the court may decline to appoint a new attorney. And once a defendant validly waives his right to counsel after a full Faretta hearing, the court may hold him to his decision. Perry cycled through five court- appointed lawyers and knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel—not once but twice. The judge was not re- quired to reassess the matter when Perry changed his mind again after the trial began. We affirm the judgment. I. Background The specifics of Lennie Perry’s crimes are not at issue on appeal, so a brief summary will suffice. From 2012 to 2017, Perry sex trafficked teenaged girls between the ages of 13 and 17. He drew them in by providing shelter, food, and money. He then exploited their dependence to get them to do sex work for him, using intimidation, threats, and physical and sexual abuse to control their behavior. No. 24-2327 3 In 2018 a grand jury returned an indictment charging Perry with eight counts of sex trafficking minors in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591. The case was assigned to Judge Harry Leinenweber, and Attorney Darryl Goldberg was appointed to represent Perry. From the outset, Perry showed little inclination to cooper- ate with his legal representative. He soon began peppering the court with pro se motions. These persistent filings led the judge to remind him of the importance of working with his counsel. For a time his pro se submissions stopped. The judge later appointed a second lawyer, Christopher Grohman, to as- sist Goldberg with Perry’s defense. It was not long before Perry reverted to his earlier pattern, with seven pro se filings in a two-week period—some of which violated the court’s protective order prohibiting him from contacting victims and witnesses. Perry’s attorneys moved to withdraw, advising the court that their client wanted to represent himself. In accordance with Faretta, the judge held a he