Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02930/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02930-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyrone Johnson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2930

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Tyrone Johnson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 9, 2005

Filed: May 18, 2005 

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Tyrone Johnson pled guilty to distributing five grams or more of cocaine base,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). At sentencing, Johnson objected

to the application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, arguing under Blakely

v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), that the guidelines scheme in its entirety was

unconstitutional. The parties stipulated to the base offense level as well as the

applicable adjustments, establishing a guideline range of thirty-seven to forty-six

months' imprisonment. The district court sentenced Johnson to a term of thirty-seven

months' imprisonment and a four-year term of supervised release. 

Appellate Case: 04-2930 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2005 Entry ID: 1903999
-2-

Johnson's objection to the guidelines at sentencing sufficiently preserved the

United States v. Booker issue for our review. 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). In the instant

case we are faced with a situation we've recently addressed: a defendant sentenced

to the low end of the guidelines, who preserves a Booker issue, but who faced no

enhancement based on judge-found facts. See United States v. Garcia, No. 04-3016,

2005 WL 957319 (8th Cir. Apr. 27, 2005); United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642

(8th Cir. 2005). As such, the issue is whether it is "harmless error to sentence a

defendant under a mandatory federal sentencing guideline regime, as opposed to the

Booker advisory system, when there is no Sixth Amendment issue as to the guideline

computation and the defendant is sentenced at the bottom of the federal sentencing

guideline range." Haidley, 400 F.3d at 644. 

Proving harmless error, or that any error does not affect substantial rights, is

a burden that lies with the beneficiary of the error. Here, that is the government. See

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). As in Garcia and Haidley, there is

nothing in this record to indicate that Johnson's sentence would have been the same

under advisory guidelines. See United States v. Marcussen, No. 04-2935, 2005 WL

820350 (8th Cir. Apr. 11, 2005) (finding harmless error because the district court set

forth on the record the sentence it would have imposed had the mandatory guidelines

scheme not been in place). Thus, the government has not satisfied its burden of

proving the sentencing error is harmless. Garcia, 2005 WL 957319, at *2. 

We therefore vacate Johnson's sentence and remand for resentencing. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2930 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2005 Entry ID: 1903999