Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08160/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08160-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 Citations to “CR doc. ___” are to the record in the underlying criminal matter, CR01-1072-PCT-DGC (LOA). Citations to “Doc. ___” or “doc. ___” are to the record in CV13-8160-PCT-DGC (LOA), the civil case opened upon the filing of the Motion to Vacate.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent, 

vs.

Johnny Orsinger, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-8160-PCT-DGC (LOA)

No. CR-01-1072-PCT-DGC (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This case is before the Court on Defendant Johnny Orsinger’s (“Movant”) Motion to

Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255. (Doc. 11

) Movant is represented by counsel. The United States (“Respondent”) has

filed a Response in which it does not oppose Movant’s request to be resentenced. (Doc. 8)

I. Background

A. Indictment, Change of Plea and Sentencing

Movant was charged in a superseding indictment filed on July 9, 2002 with eighteen

criminal offenses, including two counts of First Degree Murder (Counts One and Seven),

three counts of Use of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence Resulting in Death (Counts

Two, Four and Six), two counts of Felony Murder-Kidnaping (Counts Three and Fifteen),

two counts of Kidnaping (Counts Five and Seventeen) one count of Carjacking Resulting in

Death (Count Nine), one count of Felony Murder-Robbery (Count Eleven), one count of

Case 3:13-cv-08160-SPL Document 9 Filed 05/05/14 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Robbery (Count Thirteen), and six counts of Use of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence

(Counts Eight, Ten, Twelve, Fourteen, Sixteen and Eighteen). (CR docs. 96, 288; doc. 1 at

1-2) Four other defendants were also charged with offenses arising from the same incident.

(Doc. 8 at 2) 

Following a jury trial in December 2002, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all

eighteen counts. (CR docs. 198, 223) On September 15, 2003, the District Judge sentenced

Movant to concurrent terms of life imprisonment on Counts One, Three, Five, Seven, Nine,

Eleven, Thirteen, Fifteen and Seventeen; life imprisonment on Count Two to be served

consecutively to the terms imposed in Counts One, Three, Five, Seven, Nine, Eleven,

Thirteen, Fifteen and Seventeen; life imprisonment on Count Four to be served consecutively

to the term imposed in Count Two; life imprisonment on Count Six to be served

consecutively to the term imposed in Count Four; and 300 months in prison on Counts Eight,

Ten, Twelve, Fourteen, Sixteen and Eighteen, each 300 month term to run consecutively to

each other and consecutively to the other sentences imposed. (CR doc. 288 at 2)

B. Direct Appeal

Movant filed a Notice of Appeal on September 19, 2003. (CR doc. 289) On June 27,

2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum

decision in which it affirmed Movant’s convictions and sentences. (Doc. 1 at 2; CR doc. 328)

Movant did not file a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. (Doc.

1 at 2)

C. Motion to Vacate 

On June 23, 2013, Movant filed his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 1) Movant presents four grounds for relief. In Ground

One, Movant contends he is entitled to be resentenced pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 132

S.Ct. 2455 (2012). Movant claims that according to the holding in Miller, the Eighth

Amendment prohibits a court from imposing a mandatory life sentence on a juvenile. In

Ground Two, Movant argues that the holding in Miller should also apply to the multiple

Case 3:13-cv-08160-SPL Document 9 Filed 05/05/14 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

consecutive mandatory sentences Movant received on the firearm counts pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 924(c). Movant contends the total sentence on the firearm counts, 150 years, is

functionally equivalent to a mandatory life sentence. In Ground Three, Movant alleges his

convictions and sentences violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. In Ground Four, Movant

argues that upon revisiting the mandatory life sentences pursuant to Miller, “the sentencing

package will come unbundled.” Movant asks, therefore, that the District Judge reconsider the

sentencing package as a whole, including both the mandatory and non-mandatory sentences.

Respondent filed a Response to Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence on

November 22, 2013. (Doc. 8) 

II. Discussion

In Miller, the Supreme Court held “that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing

scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.”

Miller, 132 S.Ct. at 2469. “Such mandatory penalties, by their nature, preclude a sentencer

from taking account of an offender’s age and the wealth of characteristics and circumstances

attendant to it.” Id. at 2467.

Movant states in Ground One that nine of his twelve life sentences were mandatory,

as were the firearm sentences that totaled 150 years. (Doc. 1 at 3) He further states he was

sixteen years old at the time of the offenses and was transferred to adult status pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 5032. He contends, therefore, he is entitled to be resentenced “on the counts

comprising the basis for the mandatory life sentences.” He asks the Court to vacate his

sentences and conduct a new sentencing hearing that affords him an opportunity to present

mitigating evidence in support of sentences that provide a meaningful opportunity for release.

Respondent agrees Movant was sixteen years old at the time of the murders, and that

Miller is retroactive and applicable to Movant. Respondent, therefore, does not oppose

Movant’s request to be resentenced. With respect to Movant’s other claims, Respondent

asserts that those issues can be addressed at the time of resentencing. The undersigned

Magistrate Judge agrees. Because a resentencing may render moot Movant’s other claims,

those claims need not be addressed here. In light of the holding in Miller and Respondent’s

Case 3:13-cv-08160-SPL Document 9 Filed 05/05/14 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

non-opposition to Movant’s request in Ground One to be resentenced, this Magistrate Judge

will recommend that the Motion to Vacate be granted.

Accordingly,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct

Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, doc. 1, be

GRANTED and that Movant be resentenced in accordance with Miller v. Alabama, 132

S.Ct. 2455 (2012).

This report and recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. The

parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response

to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the

district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order of judgement entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

DATED this 5th day of May, 2014.

Case 3:13-cv-08160-SPL Document 9 Filed 05/05/14 Page 4 of 4