Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06094/USCOURTS-ca10-89-06094-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johnnie Lamart Colbert
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FiLED '~•::itul Scare$ Cot!.t r of App(!al.:; 

·r.c·nr~; (~;t·r""~~;: 

J.lH~ 2 ~i 10SQ 

'OBERT L J{0B':l<.ER 

C!e~k 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. No. 89-6094 

JOHNNIE LAMART COLBERT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CR-88-276-A) 

William P. Earley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Robert E. Mydans, United States Attorney for the Western District 

of Oklahoma (James F. Robinson, Assistant u.s. Attorney, with him 

on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before MCKAY and SETH, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY, District 

Judge. 1 

MCKAY, Circuit Judge 

Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine 

base. The statutory penalty for that offense is a term of imprisonment which may not be less than ten years nor more than life. 

21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 84l(b)(l)(A)(iii). He was sentenced pursuant to 

l Honorable John E. Conway, United States District Judge for 

the District of New Mexico, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-6094 Document: 01019297100 Date Filed: 01/29/1990 Page: 1 
. \ 

the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Comprehensive Crime Control 

Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473 §§ 211-39, 98 Stat. 1837, 1987-

2040 (1985) (''the guidelines"). The application of the guidelines 

produced a range of punishment from 235 to 293 months. The court 

sentenced him to 264 months, in the middle of the guidelines. The 

only issue defendant raises on appeal is whether the sentencing 

guidelines, as applied in this case, constitute cruel and unusual 

punishment in derogation of the eighth amendment. 

The base sentence required by the guidelines for the amount 

of drugs involved is equivalent to the statutory minimum of ten 

years which Congress thinks appropriate for that amount of drugs. 

The balance of the defendant's sentence results from the application of additional factors related to the nature of the crime and 

defendant's criminal history. The court took into account that 

the "crack" defendant sold out of an apartment, along with two 

accomplices, involved as many as two to three hundred customers a 

day and that he carried a loaded gun. The court also considered 

the fact that the defendant was on probation from a state court 

conviction for participating in an armed robbery, and he had two 

prior felony convictions for property crimes. 

The thrust of defendant's eighth amendment argument is based 

on the principle of disproportionality established in Solem v. 

Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983). The bulk of defendant's argument consists of a comparison of his sentence with sentences for other 

crimes under the guidelines, including murder, sexual abuse of a 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-6094 Document: 01019297100 Date Filed: 01/29/1990 Page: 2 
minor, kidnapping, and bank robbery. We do not find such comparisons persuasive. The base offense level for this crime is 

clearly not disproportionate to what Congress and other jurisdictions have indicated is appropriate for drug offenses. Starting 

from that basis, we cannot say that either the base offense level 

or the balance of the sentence which is based on the characteristics of the crime and the criminal history of the defendant (particularly the fact that this conduct occurred while he was on pro~ 

bation, demonstrating his lack of response to prior restraint) 

could remotely meet the standard required to invalidate sentencing 

under Solem. 

We find the Supreme Court's decision in Hutto v. Davis, 454 

U.S. 370 (1982), very persuasive, if not controlling, under these 

facts. In Hutto, the Supreme Court upheld a sentence of twenty 

years imprisonment for possession of nine ounces of marijuana with 

intent to distribute. 2 This holding was not disturbed by the 

later Helm decision. By comparison, defendant's sentence of 

twenty-two years for conspiracy to distribute crack does not 

appear disproportionate to the sentence upheld in Hutto. In addition, the recidivist component of defendant's sentence is much 

less harsh than the life sentence without parole for issuing a bad 

check found unconstitutional in Helm. Mr. Colbert's offense was 

significantly more serious while his sentence was much less 

2 This sentence was combined with a twenty-year sentence for 

actual distribution, resulting in a total sentence of forty years. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-6094 Document: 01019297100 Date Filed: 01/29/1990 Page: 3 
severe. 

Defendant also appears to be making an argument that Congress 

did not intend this sentence because he claims it is on average 

materially different from the actual times now spent in prison by 

similar offenders who have committed similar offenses. While such 

an argument might have had force at one time, the argument is much 

less persuasive now that Congress has amended the drug statutes to 

make them substantially more severe than they previously had been. 

See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 960 (1989). 

The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-6094 Document: 01019297100 Date Filed: 01/29/1990 Page: 4