Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02181/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02181-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Shaun Emery White
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2181

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Shaun Emery White, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 8, 2004

Filed: May 17, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit

Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Shaun Emery White pleaded guilty to one count

of aggravated assault in exchange for dismissal of three remaining counts against him

and the government’s promise not to pursue additional firearm and drug charges.

Because White was also facing an undischarged term of imprisonment with the State

of Minnesota, the parties further agreed to recommend that White’s federal prison

Appellate Case: 03-2181 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2004 Entry ID: 1767715 
1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

2

Although White went to bed after the beating, Smith was fearful that Long

would inform the authorities. With the aid of a female accomplice, Smith drove Long

to a remote area of the Reservation and shot him dead.

-2-

sentence run concurrent with his State time. Although the district court1

 did not

voice objection to this recommendation at the change-of-plea hearing, it declined to

follow it at sentencing, instead imposing a consecutive sentence of 63 months of

imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. White appeals, arguing

the district court failed to articulate an adequate justification for rejecting the

concurrent-time recommendation and erred in imposing a consecutive sentence. We

affirm.

I.

On December 15, 2001, White attended a party at a home located on

Minnesota’s Red Lake Indian Reservation. After an evening of drinking and drug

use, White and his co-defendants, Anthony Smith and Frederick Fisher, brutally

assaulted Ronald Long. Smith first hit Long over the head with a bottle and then

fired a handgun past Long. The three men then dragged the bleeding Long into the

basement and beat him while holding him at gunpoint. According to White, he and

Smith struck Long in the head with their handguns while Fisher kicked Long.2

At the time of the assault, White was still subject to a stayed 30-year Minnesota

prison sentence for a second-degree murder conviction that occurred when White was

a juvenile. White’s involvement in the assault ultimately triggered execution of the

stayed prison sentence, and White approached plea bargaining in his federal case with

the state sentence in mind. Paragraph five of White’s plea agreement specified that

White’s likely imprisonment range for the assault would be 63-78 months. The

Appellate Case: 03-2181 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2004 Entry ID: 1767715 
-3-

agreement further provided that “[t]he parties will recommend that this sentence be

served concurrently with [White’s] state sentence for second degree murder (360

months).”

At the change-of-plea hearing, the parties acknowledged the importance of the

concurrent-time recommendation, and the district court did not express concern over

the provision. Nevertheless, the plea agreement itself specified that the court would

determine if White’s sentence would be concurrent or consecutive, and both the

government and the district court made clear that the recommendation for concurrent

time was not binding:

[Government]: Now, we’re going to recommend that your sentence be

served concurrent to your current State sentence that you got from [the

state judge]. Do you understand the Judge is going to make a decision

on whether or not it’s concurrent or consecutive? But the parties are

going to argue to the court that it should be concurrent. Do you

understand that?

[White]: Yes . . . .

[Government]: You understand that the Judge has the right to order

your sentence to be concurrent or consecutive, and there’s no way that

we can bind him in that decision?

[White]: Yes . . . .

[Court]: Now, what was discussed here a few minutes ago, so let’s

touch on it briefly here, do you understand that under this agreement, for

whatever reason if I would not impose a concurrent sentence and I

would make it consecutive, which means you’d have to serve it on top

of your existing State sentence, while you would have the right to appeal

under the agreement . . . neither side could withdraw from the plea 

Appellate Case: 03-2181 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/17/2004 Entry ID: 1767715 
-4-

agreement . . . . You can appeal that decision, but you can’t say I want

my trial. Do you understand that?

[White]: Yes.

Change-of-Plea Hr’g Tr. at 14, 17, 27-28. At sentencing, the district court

declined to follow the recommendation that White’s federal sentence run

concurrent with his state sentence, noting that “I can’t step away from the

bench looking at the law realizing that you won’t do any time on this charge

. . . . I believe you should do the additional time, and I believe it’s fair and

appropriate under the law based upon all the facts and circumstances.”

Sentencing Hr’g Tr. at 31-32. White challenges this decision.

II.

A district court’s acceptance of a plea agreement creates a reasonable

expectation that the court will honor the agreement’s basic terms, see United

States v. Harris, 70 F.3d 1001, 1002-03 (8th Cir. 1995), and “[l]est they desire

to have trials on all criminal matters, district courts should be wary of conduct

which tends to undermine the trust [defendants] place in the deals they strike

with prosecutors.” United States v. Shields, 44 F.3d 673, 675 n. 2 (8th Cir.

1995). That said, the district court here did nothing untoward. Sentencing

recommendations are just that – recommendations – which do not bind the

district court. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B). All involved took pains to

inform White that the district court was not a party to the plea agreement and

that a consecutive sentence was possible. When the court took White’s plea

and ultimately accepted the plea agreement, it was merely accepting the

parties’ joint, non-binding recommendation that White receive concurrent time,

nothing more. 

Appellate Case: 03-2181 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/17/2004 Entry ID: 1767715 
-5-

White notes that at the change-of-plea hearing, the district court

mentioned that it would inform the parties if there was anything objectionable

in the plea agreement, yet it did not voice any concern regarding the

concurrent-time recommendation. Given the care with which White was

advised that there was no assurance that the district court would impose a

concurrent sentence, we do not believe that the district court’s decision not to

characterize the concurrent time-recommendation as objectionable can fairly

be read as somehow misleading White into believing that such a sentence

would be imposed. The district court did nothing to suggest, either explicitly

or implicitly, that it would impose a concurrent sentence, and there was no

corresponding obligation that the court reject the plea agreement or indicate

that it might impose a consecutive sentence.

White contends that the district court failed to supply reasons for its

decision and did not properly analyze his case under the relevant United States

Sentencing Guideline (U.S.S.G.), § 5G1.3 (2002). We review these matters de

novo, see United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 1045, 1046 (8th Cir. 2002), and we

disagree. Interpreting the version of § 5G1.3 that applies to White’s case, our

court has previously held that application note 6 to § 5G1.3 mandates

imposition of a consecutive sentence for defendants in White’s position. See

Smith, 282 F.3d at 1048 (analyzing U.S.S.G. Manual § 5G1.3, cmt. n. 6

(2002)). We note that the Sentencing Commission subsequently declined to

adopt Smith’s mandatory reading of application note 6 in later amendments to

the Guidelines, but the Commission has continued to recommend that a

consecutive sentence be imposed. See U.S.S.G. Manual app. C, amend. 660

(Supp. II 2003) (resolving a circuit split and indicating that imposition of a

consecutive sentence is not required but nevertheless recommended).

 

Even assuming that the district court had the authority to order a

concurrent or partially concurrent sentence in this case, the district court

Appellate Case: 03-2181 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/17/2004 Entry ID: 1767715 
-6-

supplied more than adequate justification for its decision otherwise. Under the

applicable version of § 5G1.3, the court was required to impose a reasonable

punishment and avoid unwarranted disparity by considering numerous factors

in 18 U.S.C. § 3584 and:

(a) the type . . . and length of the prior undischarged sentence;

(b) the time served on the undischarged sentence and the time likely to

be served before release;

(c) the fact that the prior undischarged sentence may have been imposed

in state court rather than federal court, or at a different time before the

same or different federal court; and

(d) any other circumstance relevant to the determination of an

appropriate sentence for the instant offense.

 

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 cmt. n. 3 (2002). 

The record here reflects the district court’s careful consideration of

applicable factors in an attempt to strike an appropriate balance. The district

court acknowledged the grief Ronald Long’s family had suffered and gave due

consideration to White’s age, unfortunate childhood, mental illness, drug

abuse, and prior involvement in criminal activity. The district court then took

into account the likely length of White’s state sentence and the amount of

credit White might receive thereon. Having considered all of these factors, the

district court chose the lowest available term under the Guidelines, 63 months,

rather than imposing the maximum term of 78 months. The district court’s

concern that a concurrent sentence would mean “no time” for White was thus

a well-considered determination that concurrent time would not fairly punish

White for his participation in the assault. 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2181 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/17/2004 Entry ID: 1767715