Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03162/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03162-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George W. Turley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL.L...u 

United States Court of Appeal, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

GEORGE W. TURLEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT APR 3 0 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 92-3162 and 

92-3163 

(D.C. Nos. 91-20071-01-0 

and 91-20072 - 01-0) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and TACHA, 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. 

George w. Turley was indicted in two separate cases in 

federal court in Kansas . These cases are consolidated for appeal. 

In No. 91-3162, Mr. Turley pled guilty to conspiring to commit 

accessory after the fact to a bank robbery in violation of 18 

*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· c ase, 

res judicata, or c ollateral estoppel . 10t h Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-3162 Document: 010110220235 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 1 
U.S.C. § 371 (1988). In No. 92-3163, he pled guilty to one count 

of wire fraud for registering an automobile in Oregon rather than 

Kansas in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (1988). Mr. Turley 

appeals the imposition of fines, claiming that he is indigent and 

that the fines violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against 

imposing excessive fines. We order a reduction in one of the 

fines, but we otherwise affirm. 

After Mr. Turley's guilty plea was accepted, a presentence 

report was prepared. Mr . Turley objected to portions of the 

report detailing his ability to pay fines and restitution . The 

district court overruled all but one of Mr. Turley's objections. 

See rec., supp . vol. I., at 12-14, 20 (No. 92-3162) .

1 In his 

first case, Mr. Turley was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment and 

fined $75,000 plus his costs of incarceration and supervised 

release, as well as being ordered to pay $33,842.25 in 

restitution. In the wire fraud case, he was sentenced to a 

consecutive term of incarceration of eighteen months. He was also 

ordered to pay a fine of $10,000 plus the costs of incarceration 

and supervised release and $13,962.04 in restitution. Mr. Turley 

appeals from the orders in both cases. 

Mr. Turley's primary complaint is that the calculation of his 

financial resources in the presentence report is inaccurate. He 

claims that, due to much of his property being the subject of 

1 The district court agreed with Mr. Turley that he should 

receive a two point decrease for acceptance of responsibility in 

the conspiracy case . 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3162 Document: 010110220235 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 2 
forfeiture proceedings by the United States, he is presently 

indigent and cannot afford to pay the fines and restitution. Mr. 

Turley concedes that the fines and restitution imposed by the 

district court are within the guidelines, but asserts that their 

imposition violates the Eighth Amendment. 

A district court's sentencing decision is reviewed under an 

abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Jimenez, 928 F.2d 

356, 364 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 164 (1991 ) . We 

review a district court's application of the sentencing guidelines 

de nova, and a court's findings of fact are accepted unless 

clearly erroneous. United States v. Short, 947 F.2d 1445, 1456 - 57 

(10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1680 (1992); United 

States v. Kirk, 894 F.2d 1162, 1163 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Mr. Turley's first argument is that he is indigent . He 

therefore asserts he cannot afford to pay the fines. In each of 

his cases, the district court found that the calculation of his 

financial situation in the presentence report was accurate and 

that Mr. Turley would be able to pay the fines and restitution 

imposed. Rec., supp. vol. I, at 14, 24, 27 (No. 92-3162); Rec., 

supp. vol. I, at 14, 15 (No. 92-3163) . By subtracting property 

subject to forfeiture, the government arrived at a net worth f o r 

Mr. Turley of $204,484.00 . Appellee's Br. at 8. Mr. Turley did 

not dispute this figure in a reply brief and appears to rely on 

his claim that because he was declared indigent at the time 

counsel was appointed, he therefore has no assets to report. As 

the gove rnment poi nts out, however, "[a] person may b e financially 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3162 Document: 010110220235 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 3 
unable to obtain counsel for a variety of reasons unrelated to 

wealth or indigency, such as here where the defendant was in 

custody, his assets were mostly tied up in real estate, and he did 

not have immediate access to his records." Appellee's Br. at 7. 

The conclusion of indigency sufficient to require appointed 

counsel at the beginning of a criminal action does not preclude 

the court from subsequently finding defendant has the ability to 

pay a fine. We have reviewed the record, and we are not persuaded 

the district court erred in finding that Mr. Turley was able to 

pay the fines and restitutions. 

Mr. Turley also contends that the fines imposed were so 

excessive as to violate the Eighth Amendment. Given our previous 

discussion, his argument fails insofar as it relies on his alleged 

indigent status. Nonetheless, we examine Mr. Turley's claim that 

the fines imposed fail the proportionality analysis set forth in 

Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290-92 (1983). This court has 

summarized the Solem three part test as "comparison of the [fine] 

imposed with (1) the gravity of the offense; (2) sentences imposed 

on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (3) sentences 

imposed on others convicted of the same crime in other 

jurisdictions." United States v. Pena, 920 F.2d 1509, 1517 

(1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2802 (1991) (citing Solem, 463 

U.S. at 290-92) .

2 Because we reduce the fine in case no. 92-3162, 

2 The Solem three part proportionality analysis has been 

questioned by some justices of the Supreme Court in Harmelin v. 

Michigan, 111 S.Ct. 2680 (1991). Justice Scalia and Rehnquist 

agreed that the Eighth Amendment contains no proportionality 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-3162 Document: 010110220235 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 4 
see infra, the fines imposed in this case are within the guideline 

range, and the district court found that Mr. Turley has adequate 

financial resources to meet these costs. We conclude there is no 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

We next address the amount of the fine imposed in No. 92-3162 

for conspiring to commit accessory after the fact. The district 

court reduced Mr. Turley's guideline range by two points for 

acceptance of responsibility. This reduction placed Mr. Turley in 

a new guideline range for which the maximum fine he could receive 

is $60,000. He did not object below to the actual fine imposed, 

$75,000, and the government argues that we cannot address this 

issue unless we find plain error. 

Mr. Turley's offense level was 19. The guideline range for 

fining a level 19 offense is $6000 to $60,000. U.S.S.G. § 

5El.2(c) (3) (Nov. 1992). A fine of $75,000 is an incorrect 

application of the guidelines. The failure of the district court 

to give justification for departing $15,000 over the maximum 

amount constitutes plain error. See United States v. Smith, 919 

F.2d 123, 124 (10th Cir. 1990). We therefore order that Mr. 

guarantee. Id. at 2686. Justices Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter 

would impose a threshold requirement in the Solem test, requiring 

that the first part be satisfied before assessing parts 2 and 3. ) 

Id. at 2707. Because of our disposition, we find it unnecessary 

to consider the vitality of the Solem analysis. 

-5-

~ ---------

Appellate Case: 92-3162 Document: 010110220235 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 5 
Turley's fine in Case No. 92-3162 be reduced from $75,000 to the 

guideline maximum of $60,000 . We AFFIRM the district court's 

opinions in both cases on the remaining issues. 

- 6 -

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

---

Appellate Case: 92-3162 Document: 010110220235 Date Filed: 04/30/1993 Page: 6