Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05098/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05098-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sylvester Eugene Gay
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FI LED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci~cuic 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS IVIAR 2 7 1991 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

SYLVESTER EUGENE GAY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT KOBERT L. I..JOECKER 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk 

No. 90-5098 

(D.C. No. 89-CR-20-01-E) 

( N. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SETH and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

On July 20, 1989, defendant-appellant Sylvester Eugene Gay 

pled guilty to one count of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2113(a). The district court classified Gay as a career offender 

under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and sentenced him to 210 

*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. 

Appellate Case: 90-5098 Document: 010110031427 Date Filed: 03/27/1991 Page: 1 
.. 

months imprisonment. Gay appeals pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). 

His single argument on appeal is that the district court erred in 

finding that he had two prior felony convictions for crimes of 

violence necessary for sentence enhancement. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. 

The presentence report prepared for the district court 

determined that three of Gay's prior convictions could be 

considered "crimes of violence": (1) a 1970 juvenile conviction 

for robbery with a firearm, (2) a 1973 conviction for robbery with 

firearms, and (3) a 1980 conviction for attempted burglary and 

assault with a dangerous weapon. At the sentencing hearing, Gay 

did not dispute the 1973 robbery conviction. The district court 

found that Gay was granted post-conviction relief for the 1970 

juvenile conviction and the conviction was dismissed. Gay's 

argument, therefore, centered on the 1980 conviction. 

Gay claimed he received post-conviction relief for the 1980 

charge. The probation officer preparing the presentence report 

found no factual evidence supporting such a claim in the initial 

report and in a separate addendum requested by the judge at 

sentencing. Gay argued, however, that a 1983 State of Oklahoma 

District Court order granting him post-conviction relief for his 

1970 juvenile charge under Lamb v. Brown, 456 F.2d 18 (10th Cir.), 

applied retroactively to expunge the 1980 charge. 

The district court found no merit to Gay's argument and used 

the 1980 charge and the undisputed 1973 charge as the basis for 

categorizing Gay as a career offender under§ 4B1.1 of the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5098 Document: 010110031427 Date Filed: 03/27/1991 Page: 2 
Guidelines. As a "career offender," Gay's offense level and 

criminal history category were raised from a level 17 and category 

VI imprisonment range of 51 to 63 months to a level 32 and 

category VI range of 210 to 262 months. 

After the sentencing, Gay's court-appointed attorney filed a 

motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

stating that the arguments proposed by appellant on appeal were 

frivolous. This court granted the motion and Gay continued this 

appeal prose. 

On appeal, Gay presents no new factual proof that he received 

post-conviction relief on the 1980 charge. Because the facts are 

undisputed and the issue on appeal involves the legal 

determinations made by the district court in applying the 

Guidelines, we review the question of law presented de novo. 

United States v. Vanderlaan, 921 F.2d 257 (10th Cir.); 

United States v. Maines, 920 F.2d 1525 (10th Cir.). 

Section 4Bl.1 of the Guidelines includes in its definition of 

a career offender a defendant who has at least "two prior felony 

convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled 

substance offense." Both Gay's 1973 robbery with firearms and 

1980 assault with a dangerous weapon convictions qualify as 

"crimes of violence" because they involve the use or attempted use 

of physical force against the person of another. See Guidelines 

§ 4Bl.2(1). Gay does not dispute this classification. 

Gay's argument focuses on the effect the post-conviction 

relief he obtained for his juvenile convictions has on subsequent 

-3-

• 

Appellate Case: 90-5098 Document: 010110031427 Date Filed: 03/27/1991 Page: 3 
.. 

felony charges. He contends that the 1983 court order granting 

post-conviction relief for his 1970 juvenile charge applied 

retroactively to erase all pre-1983 convictions including the two 

crimes of violence used to enhance his sentence. Appellant cites 

as authority for this proposition our decisions in Radcliff v. 

Anderson, 509 F.2d 1093 (10th Cir.), Bromley v. Crisp, 561 F.2d 

1351 (10th Cir.), and Rutledge v. Sunderland, 671 F.2d 377 (10th 

Cir.). 

Appellant misunderstands and misapplies the law regarding the 

retroactive application of post-conviction relief. In Lamb, we 

found that an Oklahoma statute treating 16- to 18-year-old males 

differently from 16- to 18-year-old females violated the equal 

protection clause. Radcliff retroactively applied Lamb to pre1972 juvenile convictions. Under Radcliff, Gay's 1969 and 1970 

convictions, which occurred in Oklahoma when he was between the 

ages of 16 and 18, were properly considered for post-conviction 

relief. 

Gay now appears to argue that Radcliff somehow expanded our 

holding in Lamb and retroactively expunged all his adult 

convictions occurring prior to the date of post-conviction relief. 

This is incorrect. In Radcliff we stated "[t]he Lamb decision is 

the law of the circuit and we are concerned only with its 

retroactivity." Radcliff, 509 F.2d at 1094. Both Radcliff and 

Lamb affect felony convictions occurring while a male defendant is 

between the ages of 16 and 18. Neither opinion does anything to 

alter subsequent adult convictions. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-5098 Document: 010110031427 Date Filed: 03/27/1991 Page: 4 
Appellant cites to our later decisions in Bromley and 

Rutledge which do require resentencing when juvenile offenses, 

declared void under Lamb, were used to enhance punishment under 

recidivist statutes for later adult convictions. However, 

appellant does not argue that his juvenile sentences were 

improperly used to enhance his later adult sentences. 

Nothing in Radcliff, Bromley or Rutledge gives appellant a 

"clean slate" as he suggests. There simply is no legal basis for 

the proposition that once a juvenile conviction is held to be 

invalid, all convictions occurring prior to the date of postconviction relief are void. 

We find that the district court conducted a thorough review 

of appellant's criminal history and properly applied the 

Guidelines. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-5098 Document: 010110031427 Date Filed: 03/27/1991 Page: 5