Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04172/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04172-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kerry L. Baker
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4172

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Nebraska. 

Kerry L. Baker * 

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 24, 2005

 Filed: July 22, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, HEANEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

Kerry L. Baker appeals his sentence following his conviction for conspiring to

distribute over fifty grams of cocaine base. Mr. Baker had a prior felony drug

conviction, and he received the mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years under

21 U.S.C. § 841(b). He argues that, on the facts of his case, a twenty-year mandatory

minimum sentence is disproportionate to the crime and comprises cruel and unusual

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Appellate Case: 04-4172 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2005 Entry ID: 1931484
We discussed Mr. Baker’s underlying offense and jury trial in United States v.

Kerry Baker, 367 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2004). In that appeal, we found the evidence

sufficient to reinstate a jury verdict of guilty on the charge of conspiring to distribute

over fifty grams of crack cocaine. Although the evidence was sufficient, the

government’s case against Mr. Baker was not overwhelming. His conviction rested

on the jury’s acceptance of testimony from witnesses of questionable credibility.

Further, the district court was concerned that the government had manipulated

sentencing by pursuing a crack cocaine conviction although the case involved

primarily powdered cocaine. At sentencing, the district court imposed the mandatory

minimum sentence, but firmly restated its belief that the evidence was insufficient to

support the verdict. Mr. Baker seizes upon these facts to argue that the mandatory

minimum sentence, as applied to his case, violates the Eighth Amendment.

This argument, in effect, is an attempt by Mr. Baker to reassert his sufficiency

of the evidence argument in the context of sentencing, having failed to succeed with

the same approach before our court during the guilt phase. We find no authority to

support this attempt. It is true that in “an extremely rare case” a sentence may be so

disproportionate to the underlying crime that a sentence runs afoul of the Eighth

Amendment. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 20 (2003) (“The Eighth Amendment,

which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, contains a ‘narrow proportionality

principle’ that ‘ applies to noncapital sentences.’” (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan,

501 U.S. 957, 996-97 (1991))). The relevant facts for the purpose of an Eighth

Amendment inquiry, however, are the facts surrounding the offense, not the relative

strength or weakness of the government’s successful proof of those facts. Ewing, 538

U.S. at 29-30 (discussing the facts of the immediate crime of conviction as well as the

defendant’s prior convictions). Here, a review of the facts shows that the probation

office actually recommended a sentence higher than twenty years based on drug

quantity. Further, “[w]e have held that mandatory minimum penalties for drug

offenses do not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual

punishments.” United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 679 (8th Cir. 2003). 

Appellate Case: 04-4172 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2005 Entry ID: 1931484
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4172 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/22/2005 Entry ID: 1931484