• Second Circuit: No Criminal History Points on Sentence Not Served

    Published By Stephen Preziosi

    United States v. Valente, 915 F.3d 916 (2d Cir. Feb. 15, 2019). The Second Circuit vacated the defendant’s 240- month term of imprisonment, affirmed the $8,616,113 restitution order, and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court erred by assigning criminal history points for a sentence the defendant had not yet served, contrary to Application Note 2 to §4A1.2. Stating that the language of the application note was unambiguous, the court held that the district court’s error resulted in a higher guideline range, prejudicing the defendant, and required remand for resentencing using the correct guideline range.

    Section 4A1.2(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides guidance for determining whether “prior sentences” are counted in an offender’s criminal history score. All felonies are counted. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c). Certain prior misdemeanor convictions are not counted if they are listed under § 4A1.2(c)(1) or are similar to the listed offenses. But, an unlisted misdemeanor offense is counted if it is categorically more serious than a listed offense. United States v. Morales , 239 F.3d 113, 118 (2d Cir. 2000). In this context, “categorically more serious” does not mean that the unlisted offense is “within a category that is more serious than the [l]isted offenses” based solely on its underlying elements. Id. at 118 n.5. Rather, we “use[ ] the adverb [‘categorically’] in its ordinary sense to mean ‘without qualification or reservation.’ ” Id. (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993) (“categorically”) ). In determining whether an offense is categorically more serious than a listed offense, the court should use a common-sense approach that includes consideration of relevant factors such as (i) a comparison of punishments imposed for the listed and unlisted offenses, (ii) the perceived seriousness of the offense as indicated by the level of punishment; (iii) the elements of the offense, (iv) the level of culpability involved; and (v) the degree to which the commission of the offense indicates a likelihood of recurring criminal conduct.

    U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 cmt. n.12(A). The district court may also consider “any other factor the court reasonably finds relevant in comparing prior offenses and listed [o]ffenses.” United States v. Martinez-Santos , 184 F.3d 196, 206 (2d Cir. 1999). The misdemeanor interlock device offense is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). United States v. Valente, 915 F.3d 916, 921 (2d Cir. 2019)

  • Unconstitutional Federal Statute Calls Supreme Court to Protect Sixth Amendment Right to Trial by Jury

    Published By Stephen Preziosi

    United States v. Haymond

    No. 17-1672

    U.S. Supreme Court

    Decided: June 26, 2019

    ISSUE

    Whether 18 U.S.C. §3583(k)’s requirement that a district court impose a mandatory minimum prison sentence by a preponderance of the evidence for certain offenses committed during supervised release violates the constitution’s guarantee of a trial by jury. 

    HOLDING

    The U.S. Supreme Court held that the 5-year mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3583(k) is unconstitutional unless the charges can be proven by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

    FACTS OF THE CASE

    Haymond was found guilty of possessing child pornography by a jury and was sentenced to 38 months in prison followed by 10 years of supervised release. During his supervised release, the government discovered what appeared to be child pornography on Haymond’s phone. As a result of the violation, the government sought additional incarceration for Haymond.

    A district judge found that Haymond knowingly possessed the images depicting child pornography by a proponderence of the evidence. Under 18 U.S.C. §3583(k) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, a judge is required to impose a minimum prison sentence of five years where a defendant has violated supervised release by committing certain offenses. Relevant to this case, one of those listed offenses is possession of child pornography. Although reluctant to do so, the district judge imposed the mandatory 5-year sentence.

    The Tenth Circuit found that §3583(k) violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, acknowledging that while a jury previously convicted Haymond by a reasonable doubt resulting in a 0-10 year sentence, §3583(k) allowed Haymond to face a higher mandatory minimum only by a judge’s finding of a preponderance of the evidence. This, the Tenth Circuit held, violated Haymond’s constitutional right to a trial by jury. Haymond was resentenced without regard to §3583(k)’s provisions, and the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to resolve the question of the statute’s constitutionality.

    COURT’S ANALYSIS

    The Fifth and Sixth Amendment guarantee the accused the right to a trial by an impartial jury and due process of law in criminal proceedings in the United States. A jury’s finding of guilt must also be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Only after a jury finds a defendant guilty of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt may the judge impose a penalty within the range allowed for that offense. The Supreme Court recognizes that “even when judges [enjoy] discretion to adjust a sentence based on judge-found aggravating or mitigating facts, they [cannot] ‘swell the penalty above what the law [provides] for the acts charged.’” 588 U.S. ___ (2019) quoting Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 at 519 (Thomas, J., concurring). 

    Here, §3583(k) permits just that. Only as a result of the district judge’s finding of the defendant’s guilt by a preponderance of the evidence is the five-year mandatory minimum imposed. Contrary to the government’s argument, this new sentence was not authorized by the jury’s verdict.

    The Supreme Court  already held a similar statutory scheme allowing judges to impose sentences above the allowed maximum unconstitutional. In Apprendi v. New Jersey, a judge sought to impose a longer sentence than the prescribed maximum after a jury trial pursuant to a statute that permitted him to do so under a preponderance of the evidence standard. The Court held this scheme unconstitutional and later applied the same rule when it held a similar sentence enhancement unconstitutional in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 466.

    Section 3583(k) essentially permits district courts to impose a new and potentially harsher punishment for a new offense. By allowing a judge to increase “‘the legally prescribed range of allowable sentences’ [is] in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.” 588 U.S. ___ (2019) (quoting Alleyne at 115). The Supreme Court vacated Haymond’s judgment, holding §3583(k) unconstitutional.

  • Protecting the Right to Preserve an Appeal Regardless of Plea Agreement Language

    Published By Stephen Preziosi

    Garza v. Idaho
    No. 17-1026
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Decided: February 27, 2019

    ISSUE

    Whether counsel is deemed ineffective where a defendant requests that counsel file a Notice of Appeal and, even in light of a signed  waiver of appeal, defense counsel fails to file the notice of appeal. 

    HOLDING

    The U.S. Supreme Court held that counsel is ineffective where counsel declines to file a Notice of Appeal at the defendant’s request even where the defendant has signed a waiver of appeal. 

    FACTS OF THE CASE

    Garza signed a waiver of appeal upon pleading guilty to criminal charges in the state of Idaho. Following Garza’s sentencing, he informed counsel that he wished to pursue an appeal. Counsel advised Garza not to appeal because he had signed a waiver of appeal. After the time to file a notice of appeal expired, Garza sought post-conviction relief on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds. The trial court denied relief and the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the state court’s decision. Thereafter the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that counsel could not be deemed deficient nor did counsel’s performance prejudice Garza. The Court also held that where a defendant has signed a waiver of appeal, the presumption of prejudice, under Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, does not apply. 

    COURT’S ANALYSIS

    Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 set forth a two-prong test a defendant must meet to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) counsel’s performance must be ineffective, and (2) counsel’s deficient performance must have prejudiced the defendant so much as to have deprived him of a right to a fair trial. However, when counsel’s performance is so ineffective that it “deprives a defendant of an appeal that he otherwise would have taken,” prejudice is presumed. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S., at 484.

    Commonly included in a defendant’s plea agreement is a waiver of appeal. At face, a defendant has signed away his right to pursue an appeal. However, the Supreme Court recognizes that the waiver does not prevent the defendant from pursuing appellate claims outside the scope of the plea agreement.

    As noted in Flores-Ortega, effort on the part of counsel required to file a Notice of Appeal is “purely ministerial” and “imposes no great burden.” 528 U.S., at 474. Whether an appeal is worth pursuing is not up to counsel; the defendant has the “ultimate authority.” Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751.

    Here, Garza’s attorney clearly disregarded his persistent requests to file a notice of appeal when it was not up to counsel to decide. Because Flores-Ortega has determined that a presumption of prejudice applies when a defendant is “denied counsel at a critical stage,” the Court held that a presumption of prejudice also applies when counsel’s ineffectiveness has deprived the defendant of an “appellate proceeding altogether.” 528 U.S., at 483. Therefore Garza’s attorney deprived him from a critical proceeding to which Garza had the right. 

    Contrary to the Government’s argument, Garza need not demonstrate that his claims would have won on appeal. The defendant’s right to this procedure overrides any conditions proposed by the Government and, in any case, it would be improper to require a defendant to determine which arguments he would have made on appeal.
    The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision.

  • Separate Sovereigns Doctrine: State and Federal Prosecutions for Same Conduct Deemed Constitutional

    Published By Stephen Preziosi

    Gamble v. United States
    No. 17-646
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Decided: June 17, 2019

    ISSUE

    Whether the separate sovereigns doctrine or dual sovereigns doctrine is unconstitutional under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment where the federal government charges a defendant with a federal offense for possession of a weapon when the defendant has already pleaded guilty to a State Penal Law offense stemming from possession of the same weapon.     

    HOLDING

    The U.S. Supreme Court declined to overturn the separate sovereigns doctrine and held: a) the separate sovereigns doctrine does not implicate the double jeopardy clause and b) the same conduct prosecuted by different sovereigns does not constitute the same offense as in a case of double jeopardy.

    FACTS OF THE CASE

    In 2015, petitioner Gamble was charged with violating state drug laws and Alabama’s felon in possession of a firearm statute. The federal government stepped in the prosecute Gamble for the same act–felon in possession of a firearm–but under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1).

    Gamble moved to dismiss, arguing that the federal and state firearm indictments violated the Double Jeopardy Clause under the Fifth Amendment because each indicted him for the same “offence”. The District Court denied Gamble’s motion under the ground that prosecutions by different sovereigns are not prosecutions for the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.

    Gamble pled guilty to the federal offense but preserved the right to challenge the denial of his motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. The denial of his subsequent appeal to the Eleventh Circuit again cited the dual-sovereignty doctrine. Gamble asked the Supreme Court to overturn the dual-sovereignty doctrine and the Court granted certiorari.

    COURT’S ANALYSIS

    The opinion, delivered by Justice Alito, began by addressing the common misconception that the separate sovereigns doctrine is an “exception” to the double jeopardy clause. However, the Court pointed out, the double jeopardy clause “ . . .protects individuals from being put twice in jeopardy ‘for the same offence’, not for the same conduct or actions,” thus removing any relevance between double jeopardy exposure and separate sovereigns prosecution. Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 529 (1990). The separate sovereigns doctrine doesn’t allow for someone to be convicted of the “same offense” because an offense under the federal law and an offense under a state law is not the “same offense.”

    The analysis continued by explaining that “offenses” are defined by laws; since sovereigns have their own set of laws, they also have their own set of offenses. In this instance, according to the Court, though Gamble’s conduct–being a felon in possession of a firearm–was indistinguishable, each offense for which Gamble was indicted, as a result of the conduct, were driven by distinct laws of the state of Alabama and the federal government. 

    Gamble also urged the Court to consider that the history behind the ratification of the double jeopardy clause is contrary to the Court’s previous rulings, which have continued to uphold the separate sovereigns doctrine. While Gamble argues the Supreme Court should overrule this line of decisions, the Court held that Gamble failed to provide a sufficient reason to do so and his backing of historical evidence was unconvincing. Even if the Court did credit Gamble’s historical argument, they held that a departure from established precedent “demands special justification” that is “something more than ambiguous historical evidence.”

    Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion joins in maintaining the separate sovereigns doctrine but departs from the majority in one key part. Stare decisis, according to Justice Thomas, has no place in swaying the opinion of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. As Justice Thomas puts it bluntly – “[w]hen faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simply: We should not follow it.” 

    In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg looks at the separate sovereigns doctrine from the point of view of the individual rather than the government. Justice Ginsburg asserts that the Double Jeopardy Clause “safeguards the person and restrains the government.” Allowing the state and federal government to engage in successive prosecutions flies in the face of what Ginsburg claims is the purpose of our system of government–to “operate as a double security for the rights of the people.” She would have the majority hold that the unlike foreign nations, the United States and its constituent states are “parts of one whole” which compose one people, and that the Federal and State Governments should be disabled from accomplishing together what neither government could do alone–prosecute an ordinary citizen twice for the same offense.