Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08159/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08159-0/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, CR01-1062-PCT-NVW (LOA). Citations to “Doc. ___” or “doc. ___” are to the record in CV13-8159-PCT-NVW (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-13-8159-PCT-NVW (LOA)

No. CR-01-1062-PCT-NVW (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 2, 2002 with seven

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

count of Carjacking Resulting in Death (Count Two), one count of Felony Murder-Robbery

(Count Three), one count of Robbery (Count Four), one count of Felony Murder-Kidnaping

(Count Six) and one count of Kidnaping (Count Seven). (CR docs. 47, 448; doc. 1 at 2)

Three other defendants were also charged with offenses arising from the same incident. (Doc.

Case 3:13-cv-08159-NVW Document 9 Filed 05/02/14 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

 Respondent summarizes the facts of the case in the Response by repeating the facts

set forth in Movant’s plea agreement. (Doc. 8 at 4-5 (citing CR doc. 449)) The undersigned

Magistrate Judge sees no reason to repeat them again here.

- 2 -

8 at 2) 

On September 16, 2003, Movant entered guilty pleas to all seven counts. (CR doc.

418) On December 8, 2003, the District Judge sentenced Movant to concurrent terms of life

in prison on Counts One, Two, Three, Six and Seven, a concurrent term of 180 months on

Count Four, and a term of life in prison on Count Five to run consecutively to the five

concurrent life terms. (CR Doc. 448) The District Judge further ordered the overall sentence

to run consecutively to the sentence imposed against Movant in CR 01-1072-PCT-FJM. (Id.)

B. Direct Appeal

Movant filed a Notice of Appeal on December 12, 2003. (CR doc. 450) 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) 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) In his only ground for relief, 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. Respondent filed a Response to Motion

to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence on November 22, 2013. (Doc. 8)2

 As referenced

above, Respondent does not oppose Movant’s request to be resentenced. (Doc. 8 at 5)

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

Case 3:13-cv-08159-NVW Document 9 Filed 05/02/14 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 -

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

attendant to it.” Id. at 2467.

Movant states that five of his six life sentences were mandatory. (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. In light of the holding in Miller and Respondent’s non-opposition to

Movant’s request 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

Case 3:13-cv-08159-NVW Document 9 Filed 05/02/14 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 -

(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 2nd day of May, 2014.

Case 3:13-cv-08159-NVW Document 9 Filed 05/02/14 Page 4 of 4