Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03991/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03991-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Peter Spudich
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3991

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

John Peter Spudich, * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Appellant. * PUBLISHED

___________

Submitted: April 6, 2006

Filed: April 11, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John Peter Spudich pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the district court found that

Spudich’s two prior Missouri felony driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) convictions

were crimes of violence, and Spudich was thus subject to an increased base offense

level of 24 under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2). The court applied a 3-level reduction for

acceptance of responsibility for a total offense level of 21, and calculated a Category

III criminal history, which yielded a Guidelines imprisonment range of 46-57 months.

The court overruled Spudich’s objections based on Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S.

296 (2004), and sentenced him to 50 months in prison and 3 years supervised release.

Appellate Case: 04-3991 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2006 Entry ID: 2031225
-2-

Spudich appeals, arguing that (1) his two Missouri felony DWI convictions are not

crimes of violence for purposes of section 2K2.1(a)(2); (2) the district court violated

his Sixth Amendment rights in determining that the convictions were crimes of

violence; and (3) the case should be remanded for resentencing under advisory

Guidelines as provided in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We vacate

Spudich’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

We review the district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo. See

United States v. Lindquist, 421 F.3d 751, 753 (8th Cir. 2005). We have held recently

that driving while intoxicated is a “violent felony” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e),

but that some forms of driving while intoxicated in Missouri, which involve nondriving conduct, are not violent felonies. See United States v. McCall, 439 F.3d 967,

972-73 (8th Cir. 2006) (en banc). The definition of “crime of violence” for purposes

of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) is nearly identical to the definition of “violent felony”

considered in McCall, and we generally apply the same analysis to both terms. See

United States v. Adams, No. 05-2180, 2006 WL 721793, at *2 n.2 (8th Cir. Mar. 23,

2006). 

The presentence report in this case recites the fact of Spudich’s two Missouri

felony DWI convictions, but does not provide sufficient information from acceptable

sources to determine whether a jury was required to find, or a guilty plea necessarily

rested on the fact, that Spudich was driving while intoxicated. McCall, 439 F.3d at

973. Spudich objected to the district court’s findings that the DWI convictions were

“crimes of violence” for purposes of USSG § 2K2.1, and we have held that this is

sufficient to preserve an argument concerning whether the defendant’s convictions

necessarily rested on a finding that he was driving. McCall, 439 F.3d at 974. Under

the circumstances, we are unable to determine whether the disputed convictions

involved crimes of violence, and we remand for further sentencing proceedings at

which the government may introduce evidence as to whether the DWI convictions

rested on the fact that Spudich was driving while intoxicated. Id. 

Appellate Case: 04-3991 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2006 Entry ID: 2031225
-3-

As to Spudich’s remaining arguments, the district court did not violate the Sixth

Amendment by making determinations relevant to Spudich’s prior felony convictions,

see United States v. Levering, 431 F.3d 289, 295 (8th Cir. 2005), and because we

remand for resentencing on other grounds, we need not address the district court’s

application of mandatory Guidelines, see United States v. Borer, 412 F.3d 987, 995

(8th Cir. 2005) (remanding for resentencing due to incorrect application of Guidelines;

directing district court to resentence defendant in light of Booker). 

Accordingly, we remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion and

Booker. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 276 (2005).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3991 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/11/2006 Entry ID: 2031225