Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-23-03086/USCOURTS-ca7-23-03086-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Devontae Martin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ 

No. 23-3086 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

DEVONTAE MARTIN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. 

No. 2:18-cr-00021-TLS-APR-5 — Philip P. Simon, Judge. 

____________________ 

ARGUED OCTOBER 1, 2024 — DECIDED DECEMBER 2, 2024 

____________________ 

Before BRENNAN, SCUDDER, and MALDONADO, Circuit 

Judges. 

SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Devontae Martin received a life 

sentence for his role in a July 2017 federal drug offense in 

which a fellow drug dealer shot and killed a local car wash 

owner believed to possess a substantial stash of cocaine. We 

have little trouble affirming Martin’s sentence. But we do so 

by undertaking our own independent review of the sentencing hearing, rejecting the government’s invitation to review 

Case: 23-3086 Document: 37 Filed: 12/02/2024 Pages: 6
2 No. 23-3086 

only for plain error. We have held many times over in recent 

years that a defendant like Martin need not object at sentencing to an error believed to occur during sentencing itself to 

preserve the issue for de novo review on appeal. See, 

e.g., United States v. Wood, 31 F.4th 593 (7th Cir. 2022); United 

States v. Wilcher, 91 F.4th 864 (7th Cir. 2024); United States v. 

Martin, 109 F.4th 985 (7th Cir. 2024). That is exactly the circumstance here. We are running low on patience with the lack 

of adherence to our precedent in this area. 

I 

Devontae Martin was a key player in Teddia Caldwell’s 

drug distribution operation in Gary, Indiana. Caldwell 

owned a car wash in Gary. Upon learning that another local 

car wash owner, Kevin Hood, might have a large stash of 

drugs and money, Caldwell proposed a robbery. Martin told 

Caldwell he and “his people would get on it.” His people included Taquan Clarke. Martin’s plan was simple: he and 

Clarke would show up at Hood’s car wash, “kidnap him, and 

hold him for ransom” until he turned over the drugs. 

On July 28, 2017, Martin, armed with an AK-47 assault rifle, and Clarke, carrying a pistol, drove to Hood’s car wash. 

An employee, likely presuming that the two men were there 

for a wash, helped guide them into the wash bay. From there, 

however, Martin and Clarke suddenly jumped out of their 

SUV brandishing guns. Martin shouted at bystanders to get 

down and then used the AK-47 to strike the employee who 

had just helped him into the car wash in the head. Martin and 

Clarke then attempted to kick down the door to the office 

where they believed Hood was working. Hood reacted by 

running and a chase ensued, leading to Martin catching and 

tussling with Hood in the parking lot. Two shots rang out 

Case: 23-3086 Document: 37 Filed: 12/02/2024 Pages: 6
No. 23-3086 3

from Martin’s AK-47 during the struggle. The tangle ended 

when Clarke approached and shot Hood in the head, killing 

him. 

Federal drug and firearms charges followed, and Martin 

chose to go to trial. A jury found him guilty of both a drug 

conspiracy charge (21 U.S.C. § 846) and carrying, using, and 

discharging a firearm during and in connection with the drug 

offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c), (j)). 

Everyone agreed at sentencing that Martin faced an advisory range of life imprisonment under the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines. The district court applied the factors in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a), and especially underscored the gravity of Martin’s 

offense conduct, including his “shockingly violent” decision 

to take an AK-47 to a public place surrounded by ordinary 

people “going about their day” to confront Kevin Hood. On 

the mitigating side, the district court acknowledged Martin’s 

difficult upbringing but, in the end, declined to vary downward from the advisory range of life imprisonment. 

Martin now appeals, challenging his sentence on two 

grounds.

II

First, Martin contends that the district court procedurally 

erred by believing it could impose a sentence of less than life 

imprisonment only by identifying a departure ground expressly authorized by the Guidelines. The sentencing transcript shows otherwise, however. 

Early in the proceeding, the district court asked the parties 

whether a sentence of less than life might be justified based 

on a Guidelines application note stating that a “downward 

departure may be warranted” in cases of felony murder, “[i]f 

Case: 23-3086 Document: 37 Filed: 12/02/2024 Pages: 6
4 No. 23-3086 

the defendant did not cause the death intentionally or knowingly.” See U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1 cmt. n.2(B). After hearing the parties’ perspectives, the district court decided to impose a life 

sentence. A full and fair reading of the transcript does not 

show that the district court believed it lacked authority or discretion beyond that recognized in application note 2(B). To 

the contrary, the transcript shows that the district court understood that the advisory guideline range provided only a 

“starting point” for determining an appropriate sentence. The 

district judge then proceeded to consider and apply the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), ultimately explaining 

that, after considering all aggravating and mitigating factors 

and “contemplat[ing]” the Guidelines application note, the 

court was “exercising [its] discretion to not depart in the case 

or to vary, either.” 

On this record, we cannot conclude that the district court 

construed the Sentencing Guidelines generally or application 

note 2(B) specifically as limiting its discretion to sentence 

Martin to something less than life imprisonment. 

Second, Martin contends that the district court sentenced 

him based on inaccurate information. He sees the ultimate 

sentencing decision as rooted in findings that he both fired his 

AK-47 during the struggle with Hood and indeed intended to 

commit murder. Here, too, the sentencing transcript shows 

otherwise. Foremost, while the government argued that Martin fired a shot and sought to kill Hood, the district court 

never credited those contentions. Indeed, the court was careful to observe no more than that “shots [ ] were fired by [the 

AK-47]”—a statement that stopped short of finding that Martin affirmatively or intentionally pulled the trigger. Nor do we 

see anything in the sentencing transcript showing or 

Case: 23-3086 Document: 37 Filed: 12/02/2024 Pages: 6
No. 23-3086 5

suggesting the district court determined that Martin intended 

to kill Hood when the robbery plan went bad. The record, in 

short, does not support the contention that the district court 

sentenced Martin based on inaccurate information. See United 

States v. Gamble, 969 F.3d 718, 722 (7th Cir. 2020). 

III

In no way do we discount the gravity of Martin’s life sentence. But having taken our own fresh and independent look 

at the sentencing proceeding in the district court—as de novo 

review requires we do—we are confident no error occurred. 

We pause on this point because the government insists that 

our review should be for plain error. In doing so, the government disregards three recent holdings explaining that a defendant like Devontae Martin need not object at sentencing to 

an error believed to occur during sentencing itself to preserve 

the issue for de novo review on appeal.

By now our precedent is crystal clear on the point. In 

United States v. Wood, we explained that “Rule 51(a) states in 

no uncertain terms: ‘[e]xceptions to rulings or orders of the 

court are unnecessary’ to preserve a basis for appeal.” 31 F.4th 

at 597 (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 51(a)). So when the “grounds 

for appeal existed prior to and separate from the district 

court's ultimate ruling,” a party waives their claim of error if 

they fail to raise it in the district court. Id. at 598. When the 

error is “created by the district court’s ruling itself,” however, 

a defendant is not required to contemporaneously object to 

the error to preserve it for de novo review. Id. 

Lest there be any doubt, we reinforced the point in plain, 

practical terms. “A district court’s explanation of its 

sentencing decision, regardless of whether it precedes or 

Case: 23-3086 Document: 37 Filed: 12/02/2024 Pages: 6
6 No. 23-3086 

follows the announcement of the sentence itself,” we 

observed, “is a ruling to which an exception is not required.” 

Id. at 597. Such a ruling or determination does not require a 

defendant to object—either by interrupting the sentencing 

judge mid-explanation or by raising the issue at some point 

before the proceeding concludes—to preserve a basis for error 

on appeal. See id. at 598–99. 

We returned to the same issue two years later in United 

States v. Wilcher, again rejecting the government’s invitation 

to review for plain error because Joseph Wilcher’s contentions 

on appeal—that the district court relied on an improper consideration in determining his sentence and failed to consider 

his mitigation arguments—arose out of the district court’s 

sentencing determination and accompanying explanation. 

91 F.4th at 870. Our review, then, was de novo and not merely 

for plain error. 

So too in United States v. Martin, decided just six months 

after Wilcher. 109 F.4th 985. There the government—seeming 

to resist our holding in Wood—pressed us to review Darkel 

Martin’s challenge to alleged procedural errors in the sentencing decision for plain error. See id. at 988. Returning to Wood, 

we observed that because Martin premised his claims “entirely on the adequacy of the district court’s explanation of its 

sentencing decision,” our review was de novo. Id. 

Wood, Wilcher, and Martin reflect the law of this circuit. 

Unless and until the full court chooses to revisit these cases, 

all parties—the government included—must follow them. 

With these closing observations, we AFFIRM. 

Case: 23-3086 Document: 37 Filed: 12/02/2024 Pages: 6