Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06087/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06087-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clifford Wesley Cox
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

,. -

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAR 2 8 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

CLIFFORD WESLEY COX, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 89-6087 

(D.C. No. CR-88-225-T} 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief 2Judge, McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, and 

BRATTON, District Judge. 

Submitted on the briefs: 

By agreement of the parties, oral argument was waived, and 

the case is therefore submitted on the briefs. 

Clifford Wesley Cox was charged, along with his brother, 

Lyndell Lloyd Cox, in a multi-count superseding indictment with 

various drug related offenses. Both entered pleas of guilty to 

counts 1 and 16. Clifford Cox was sentenced to 19 years and 7 

months on count 1, charging conspiracy, and 10 years on count 16, 

1 This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

2 Honorable Howard C. Bratton, District Judge for the District of 

New Mexico, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-6087 Document: 01019966732 Date Filed: 03/28/1990 Page: 1 
; . 

charging the making of an unlawful destructive device, to be 

served concurrently with the sentence imposed under count 1, plus 

3 years supervised release and a special monetary assessment of 

$50.00. In this appeal, Clifford Cox appeals his sentence. His 

brother, Lyndell Cox also appeals his sentence. On appeal, 

however, each is represented by his own counsel, and separate 

briefs have been filed. Accordingly, each will be disposed of in 

separate order, although the matters raised on appeal are essentially the same. 

Clifford Cox, the appellant in this appeal, claims that when 

he changed his plea he was "promised" that he would not be 

sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, and that he 

would be sentenced in accord with statutory law predating the Act. 

The record simply does not support this contention of a 

"promise. 113 The district judge carefully advised defendant, who 

was represented by counsel, that although he had declared the Act 

unconstitutional, the issue was then pending before the Supreme 

Court, and indicated that, if the Supreme Court declared the Act 

constitutional, he could be sentenced, or even resentenced, under 

the Act. This possibility apparently did not bother the 

defendant, or his counsel. Further, when the appellant came up 

for sentencing, some four months after changing his plea, he did 

not ask the district court to sentence him under statutory law 

predating the Act. All assumed that since the Supreme Court had 

3 Even if the district judge had made such a "promise" and in fact 

had sentenced him under the statutory law predating the Act, such 

would not foreclose resentencing under the Act and Guidelines. 

United States v. Kane, 876 F.2d 734, 736 (9th Cir. 1989). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6087 Document: 01019966732 Date Filed: 03/28/1990 Page: 2 
in the interim declared the Act constitutional in Mistretta v. 

United States, U.S. , 109 S. Ct. 647, 102 L. Ed.2d 714 

(1989), that sentencing would be under the Act. 

Although the appellant never asked the district court to be 

allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty, he does so in this court, 

again on the basis that he was "promised" by the district court 

that he would be sentenced under statutory law predating the Act. 

As above indicated, the record does not support this contention, 

and, on the contrary, indicates quite clearly that, depending on 

the Supreme Court ruling in Mistretta, he could be sentenced, or 

resentenced, under the Act. 

Judgment affirmed. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Robert H. Mcwilliams 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-6087 Document: 01019966732 Date Filed: 03/28/1990 Page: 3