Tag Archives: us supreme court

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.

government breached plea agreement

Post-Incarceration Supervised Release Tolled During Pre-Conviction Detention

Published By Stephen Preziosi

Mont v. United States
No. 17-8995
U.S. Supreme Court
Decided: June 3, 2019

Issue

Whether a convicted criminal’s period of supervised release is tolled during pretrial detention for a new criminal offense.

Holding

The U.S. Supreme Court held that pretrial incarceration later credited as time served for a new conviction is imprisonment in connection with a new conviction and thus tolls the supervised release term under §3624(e), even if the court does not make the tolling calculation until after the conviction. 

Facts of the Case

While serving a 5-year term of supervised release following a federal prison sentence, petitioner Mont was arrested on state drug charges. At that time, about nine months of supervised release remained. 

Eventually, Mont pled guilty to state charges and admitted to violating his federal supervised release conditions. The state court sentenced Mont to six years’ imprisonment and a few days later the District Court issued a warrant for the supervised release violations after previously declining to do so. By the time Mont was sentenced on the state charges, the original term of his supervised release had expired. Mont argued the District Court had no jurisdiction over him because the federal warrant was issued after his supervised release was set to expire.

The District Court rejected Mont’s argument, ruling that it had jurisdiction under 18 USC §3583(i), and sentenced Mont to an additional 42 months in prison. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision but on grounds that Mont’s supervised release period had been tolled under §3624(e) while Mont was incarcerated while awaiting sentencing. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. 

Court’s Analysis

18 U.S.C. §3624(e), under which the District Court based its decision provides:

“. . . A term of supervised release does not run during any period in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a Federal, State, or local crime unless the imprisonment is for a period of less than 30 consecutive days.”

The Supreme Court has previously recognized that the phrase “in connection with” bears a broad interpretation. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71, 85 (2006). The Court holds that pretrial detention of a conviction is “in connection with” the conviction. Had Congress intended to preclude pretrial detention, the Court reasoned, it would have used language such as “following a conviction” or “after a conviction.” The use of the language “in connection with a conviction” assumes pretrial incarceration. 

Moreover, the Court recognizes supervised release as a means to facilitate a “transition to community life.” United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59-60 (2000). Therefore, according to the Court, incarceration should not substitute supervised released and, in this case, Mont’s pretrial detention should not be credited toward his remaining supervised release. Instead, Mont’s supervised release should be tolled as per Congress’s original intent. If supervised release were not tolled, the ultimate purpose of supervised release would be frustrated. By tolling the supervised release by his pretrial detention, the District Court ensures Mont serves five years as a transitional period into a law-abiding life.

Intent for “Remaining-in” Burglary Extends Beyond the Doorway

Published By Stephen Preziosi

Quarles v. United States

No. 17-778

U.S. Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 2019

ISSUE

Whether “remaining-in” burglary occurs only if a person has the intent to commit a crime at the exact moment he or she first unlawfully remains in a building or structure, or whether it occurs when a person forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully remaining in a building or structure.

HOLDING

The U.S. Supreme Court held that “remaining-in” burglary occurs when the defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully remaining in the building or structure.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Petitioner Quarles pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 USC § 992(g)(1) and qualified for enhanced sentencing–a 15 year minimum–under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because he had three prior “violent felony” convictions under §924(e). 

However, during sentencing, Quarles claimed one of his three prior felony convictions, third degree home invasion, did not qualify as burglary, a violent felony under §924(e), and thus he was not subject to enhanced sentencing. Quarles argued that the Michigan statute, under which he was convicted, was broader than the generic definition of burglary set forth by the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575.

The District Court rejected Quarles’ argument and sentenced him to 17 years in prison. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision and the U.S. Supreme Court granted Quarles certiorari.


COURT’S ANALYSIS

The opinion, delivered by Justice Kavanaugh, required the Court to determine whether the Michigan home invasion statute swept too broadly to qualify as generic burglary as set forth by the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor v. United States. Specifically, this issue called into question whether the intent to commit a crime must take place a) upon first entering or b) at any time the person remains in the building or dwelling to qualify as generic burglary.

Under the Michigan statute, third degree home invasion occurs when a person “breaks and enters a dwelling or enters a dwelling without permission and, at any time while he or she is entering, present in, or exiting the dwelling, commits a misdemeanor.” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §750.110a(4)(a) (West 2004) (emphasis added). In Taylor, the Supreme Court interpreted generic burglary to include “remaining-in” burglary (Taylor at 599), but the question of when the intent must occur remained.

Quarles argued that the intent to commit a crime must occur at the exact moment a person enters a building illegally to constitute burglary under §924(e). Although the Court agreed with this interpretation, it pointed out that Quarles failed to distinguish between a burglary predicated on unlawful entry and a burglary predicated on unlawful remaining. In the latter category, the Court concluded, intent may be formed at any point a person remains in the dwelling or building–not only upon entering. The Court further determined that to exclude the intent to commit a crime while remaining in the structure for purposes of defining generic burglary “would make little sense in light of Congress’ rationale for specifying burglary as a violent felony.”

Generic remaining-in burglary, therefore, occurs when intent is formed at any point a person unlawfully remains in a building or structure. The state law in this case substantially corresponded to generic burglary, and Quarles’ conviction qualified as a violent felony under §924(e) for purposes of enhanced sentencing.