FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 5, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11487 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 3 2 5 - C R - T - 2 3 - MAP U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D A V I D E U G E N E L E E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 5, 2008) B efo re A N D E R S O N , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntD a vi d E uge ne L e e appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e f or2

p o s s e s s i o n w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e c o c a i n e b a s e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( ii) . O n ap p e a l L e e r a is e s f iv e is s u e s : ( 1 ) w h e th e rh is gu i l ty pl eaw as un kn ow i ng l y and i nv ol un t ar i l y e nt er ed; (2) w hether the al l eged f a i l ur e of both the gove rnm e nta nd the di s tr i c tc ourtt o c om pl y s tr i c t l y w i th 21 U . S . C . § 8 51 re qu i re s r ever sa l ; (3) w hether the cum ul at i ve ef fe ctof the errors a lle g e d in I s s u e s 1 - 2 w a rr a n ts r e v e r s a l; ( 4 ) w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt v io la te d h is E i ghth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s i n e nha nc i ng hi s s e nt e nc e unde r§ 841 a nd § 851; a nd ( 5 ) w h e th e r§ 8 4 1 a n d § 8 5 1 a r e u n c o n s titu tio n a l. I. L ee ’s G u i l ty P l ea B ec ause L ee m ade no o bj ec t i on thathi s pl eaproceedi ng s w er e i nadequ at e, w e r e v ie w h is a r g u m e n ts th a t h is g u ilty p le aw a s in v a lid f o rp la in e rr o ro n ly . See U ni te d State s v . E v ans , 4 7 8 F .3 d 1 3 3 2 , 1 3 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed , 1 2 8 S . C t. 2 5 7 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . U n d e rth is s ta n d a r d , th e r e m u s t b e a n e rr o rth a t is p la in a n d th a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . U

ni ted Stat es v. V

an ce , 494 F . 3d 985, 993 ( 11th C i r . 2007) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). A cc ordi ng l y, i n o rdert o p re vai l , L ee m us ts how ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i ty tha t , butf orthe a l l e ge d e rr or s , he w oul d not h a v e e n te r e d th e p le a . E v ans , 478 F . 3d a t 1338.3

A . S tatu te of l i m i tati on s w ai ver L ee ar gu es fi rs tthatthe m agi stra t e j ud ge erre d b y f ai l i ng t o i nform hi m that he ha d the r i ghtt o r e qui r e the gove rnm e ntt o pr ove t o aj ury tha tthe s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons ha d note xpi r e d, a nd f a i l i ng t o c orr e c thi s l a w y e r ’ s m i s appr e he ns i on thatthere w as no “ go od fa i th b as i s” for a ss ert i ng a s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s def ense . A court ’ s vi ol at i on of F eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re 11 const i tut es pl ai n err or on l y w here the courtt ot al l y f ai l s t o add re ss on e of the rul e’ s three core obj e c t i ve s , i de nt i f

i e d by us a s : “ ( 1) e ns ur i ng tha tthe gui l ty pl e ai s f r e e of c oe r c i on; ( 2 ) e n s u r i n g th a tth e d e f e n d a n tu n d e r s t a n d s th e n a tu r e o f th e c h a r g e s a g a i n s th i m; a nd ( 3) e ns ur i ng tha tthe de f e nda nti s a w a r e of

the di r e c tc ons e que nc e s of the gu i l ty pl ea . ” G ordo n v. U ni ted Stat es , 496 F . 3d 1270, 1278 ( 11th C i r . 2007) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s and ci t at i on om i tt ed). F urther, w e have hel d thata di stri ct court ' s f ai l ure t o i nform a def

endantdu ri ng the pl eacol l oq uy thathe coul d rai se a “g o o d f a ith ” d e f e n s e to th e c h a r g e s if

h e w e r e to p r o c e e d to tr ia l d o e s n o t v io la te R ul e 11, a s nothi ng i n R ul e 11 r e qui r e s the tr i a l j udge t o i nf orm the de f

e nda ntof e v e ry p o s s ib le d e f

e n s e th a t h e m a y h a v e . D ism uke v . U ni ted Stat es , 864 F . 2d 106, 1 0 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) . I t is c le arto u s f

r o m th e p le ac o llo q u y th a t L e e k n o w in g ly a n d v o lu n ta r ily p l ed g u i l ty.4

B . In ef

fe ct i ve assi st an ce of cou n se l L e e n e x t c o n te n d s th a t h e w a s d e n ie d e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l, a n d h is tr i a l a tt orne y ’ s de f

i c i e ntpe r f

orm a nc e r e nde r e d hi s pl e aunknow i ng a nd in v o lu n ta ry . S p e c if

ic a lly , h e a r g u e s th a t h is d e f e n s e c o u n s e l p r o v id e d h im w ith

“ pa t e nt l y e rr one ous a dvi c e ” i n a dvi s i ng hi m tha ts he ha d no good f a i th ba s i s f

or m ou nt i ng a s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s def ense , and fai l ed t o eval uat e f ul l y the l i m i t ed w ai ver of app ea l as i tre l at ed t o the fa ct s of hi s c as e. “W e w ill n o t c o n s id e ra n in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im th a t is r a i s e d f orthe f i r s tt i m e on di r e c tappe a l w he r e the r e ha s be e n a n i ns uf f i c i e nt op po rtun i ty t o d evel op the re cord w i th regar d t o the m er i t s of the cl ai m . ” U ni ted Stat es v. G arci a-Jai m es , 4 8 4 F .3 d 1 3 1 1 , 1 3 2 1 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , pet i t i on f or ce rt. f i led , ( J u n . 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( N o . 0 6 - 1 1 8 6 3 ) . B ec ause there i s i nsuffi ci entevi dence i n the re cord concerni ng w hether L e e ’ s tr i a l c ouns e l m i s a dvi s e d hi m r e ga r di ng hi s s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons de f

e ns e a nd fa i l ed t o eval uat e the l i m i t ed w ai ver of app ea l as i tre l at ed t o the fa ct s of hi s c as e, w e d e c lin e to a d d r e s s th e m e r its o f th e s e c la im s . See i d. C . The Pl e a A g r e e m e nt L ee ar gu es al so thatthe pl eaagre em entw as am bi gu ou s and cont ai ned c ontr a di c t ory a nd i nc orr e c ts t a t e m e nt s r e ga r di ng the s e nt e nc i ng c ons e que nc e s of5

hi s pl ea . “A n y a m b ig u itie s in th e te rm s o f a[ p le a ] a g r e e m e n t s h o u ld b e r e s o lv e d in fa vo r of the cr i m i nal defe nd ant . ” U ni te d State s v . P i e lago , 135 F . 3d 703, 709- 710 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . W h e r e th e la n g u a g e o f th e a g r e e m e n t is a m b ig u o u s , e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e o f

th e p a rtie s ’ in te n t m a y b e c o n s id e r e d to in te rp r e t th e a g r e e m e n t. U ni te d State s v . C ope land , 38 1 F . 3d 11 01 , 11 06 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). T h e p l ea ag reem en tati ssu e h ere d o es n o tap p ear t o b e am b i g u o u s. M oreover, L ee st at ed un der oath thathe w as aw ar e thathe fa ce d a st atut ory m i ni m um penal ty of l i fe i m pri sonm ent , and u nd er st oo d thatthe se nt enci ng court ha d no author i ty t o s e nt e nc e hi m be l ow the m a nda t ory m i ni m um unl e s s the g o v e rn m e n t e le c te d , in its s o le d is c r e tio n , to f ile am o tio n r e c o g n iz in g h is subst ant i al as si st ance . I I . C om p l i an c e w i t h 21 U . S . C . § 851 A . S u f

f i c i e n c y of

t h e i n f or m at i on u n d e r § 851( a) L e e a r g u e s th a t th e in f

o rm a tio n f

ile d b y th e g o v e rn m e n t f a ile d to c o m p ly strictly w ith th e r eq u irem en ts o f § 8 5 1 (a ) a n d , b ec au se th e g o v er n m en t’ s c o m p lia n c e w ith § 8 5 1 ( a ) is ju r is d ic tio n a l, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt la c k e d ju r is d ic tio n to i m p o se th e en h an ced p en al ty. L e e f a i l e d t o c ha l l e nge the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the i nf orm a t i on be l ow , a nd6

th e r e f o r e , w e o r d in a r ily w o u ld r e v ie w h is a r g u m e n ts f o rp la in e rr o ro n ly . See U ni te d State s v . T

ay lor , 4 1 7 F . 3 d 1 1 7 6 , 1 1 8 3 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). L ee arg u es, how e ve r , tha thi s c ha l l e nge t o the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the i nf orm a t i on s houl d be r e vi e w e d de no vo be c aus e the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the i nf orm a t i on i s j ur i s di c t i ona l , a nd j ur i s di c t i on m a y be c ha l l e nge d a ta ny t i m e . W e ne e d notr e s ol ve the que s t i on of w h ich stan d ar d o f r ev iew is ap p ro p riate h er e, h o w ev er , b ec au se th e d istrict co u rt’s j ur i s di c t i on t o e nha nc e L e e ’ s s e nt e nc e unde r§ 851 w a s pr ope re ve n appl y i ng the m ore dem andi ng st andard of de no vo r e v ie w . T o o b t ai n a sen t en ce en h an cem en tu n d er § 8 4 1 , th e g o v ern m en tm u st com pl y w i th the no t i ce re qu i re m entof § 8 51 (a )( 1), w hi ch prov i des thatan enhancem entbase d o n p ri or conv i ct i on s m ayno tbe i m po se d “ un l es s bef ore tri al , . . . th e U n i t ed S t at es att o rn ey fi l es an i n fo rm at i o n w i th th e co u rt(an d serv es a c opy of s uc h i nf orm a t i on on the [ de f

e nda nt ] orc ouns e l f

orthe [ de f

e nda nt ] ) s t a t i ng i n w ri t i ng the previ ou s c on vi ct i on s t o b e r el i ed up on . ” U n i ted S ta tes v. R u th erf

o rd , 17 5 F . 3d 89 9, 90 3 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ) ( qu ot i ng 21 U . S . C . § 8 51 (a )( 1)). A lth o u g h th e in fo rm atio n h er e c o n tain ed th e in co rr ec t d ate o f o n e o f L ee ’s c onvi c t i ons , a nd m i s i de nt i f i e d the t i t l e of

the U . S . C ode unde rw hi c h the enhancem entw as soug ht , i tst at ed w i th speci fi ci ty the previ ou s c on vi ct i on s r el i ed upon by the gove rnm e nti n s e e ki ng a n e nha nc e m e nt . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude7

th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt h a d ju r is d ic tio n to e n h a n c e L e e ’s s e n te n c e u n d e r§ 8 5 1 . B. D i s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s c o m pl i a nc e w i t h § 8 5 1 ( b) L ee further a ss ert s thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s f ai l ure t o con du ctthe re qu i re d § 851( b) c ol l oquy , by a s ki ng hi m w he the rhe a f f i rm e d orde ni e d the pr i or conv i ct i on s, and w arni ng hi m thatany c hal l enge t o a pri or conv i ct i on no tra i se d pri or t o the i m po si t i on of se nt ence m ayno tbe ra i se d l at ert o att ac k the se nt ence , r e q u ir e s r e v e r s a l. S ec t i on 85 1(b) prov i des that , i f the go vernm entfi l es an i nform at i on un der thi s s e c t i on, the c ourts ha l l , be f or e i m pos i ng s e nt e nc e , i nqui r e of the de f e nda nt “w h e th e rh e a f

f irm s o rd e n ie s th a t h e h a s b e e n p r e v io u s ly c o n v ic te d a s a lle g e d in the i nf orm a t i on, a nd s ha l l i nf

orm hi m tha ta ny c ha l l e nge t o apr i orc onvi c t i on w hi ch i s notm ade before se nt ence i s i m po se d m ayno tthere af t erbe ra i se d t o att ac k the s e nt e nc e . ” 21 U . S . C . § 851( b) . W e ha ve he l d tha t“ [ a ] tr i a l c ourti s not r e q u i r e d t o a d h e r e t o th e r i tu a l s o f § 8 5 1 ( b ) wh e r e ad e f

e n d a n t , a s am a tt e ro f

l a w, i s pr e c l ude d f

r om a tt a c ki ng the c onvi c t i on f orm i ng the ba s i s of

the e nha nc e m e nt i nform at i on . ” U

ni ted Stat es v. W

eave r , 905 F . 2d 1466, 1482 ( 11th C i r . 1990) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . S e c t i on § 851( e ) pr e c l ude s ade f e nda nt fr om chal l engi ng the val i di ty of any pri or conv i ct i on al l eged un der § 85 1 that oc c urr e d m or e tha n f

i ve y e a r s be f

or e the da t e of

the i nf orm a t i on a l l e gi ng the pr i or8

conv i ct i on . 21 U . S . C . § 8 51 (e ). T he re cord dem on stra t es thatthe m agi stra t e j ud ge di d n otm ake the i nq ui ri es a s de s c r i be d i n § 851( b) . N e ve rthe l e s s , the i nf orm a t i on s how s tha tthe c onvi c t i ons on w hi c h L e e ’ s e nha nc e m e ntw a s ba s e d, pos s e s s i on of c oc a i ne i n 1987, a nd pos s e s s i on of

c oc a i ne w i th i nt e ntt o s e l l i n 1994, w e r e w e l l ove rf i ve y e a r s ol d, a nd there fore no tsubj ec tt o chal l enge un der § 85 1(e) . II I. C u m u l ati ve E ff

ec t of A l l eged E rr ors L e e a r gue s tha tthe above e rr or s , w he n c om bi ne d, vi ol a t e the c onc e pt s of f u n d a m e n ta l f

a irn e s s a n d d u e p r o c e s s o f th e law , a n d r e q u ir e r e v e r s a l. W e rev i ew th e cu m u l at i v e i m p acto f m u l t i p l e erro rs de no vo , a l th o u g h s o me o f th e e rr o r s m ig h t in d iv id u a lly b e r e v ie w e d f o rp la in e rr o r . U

ni ted Stat es v. D ohan , 508 F . 3d 989, 993 ( 11th C i r . 2007) . R e ve r s a l of ac onvi c t i on m a y be w a rr a n te d w h e r e th e c u m u la tiv e e f f e c t o f m u ltip le e rr o r s is s o p r e ju d ic ia l th a t a defe nd antw as depri ved o f the ri gh tt o a fa i r tri al , even tho ug h the errors c o n s id e r e d in d iv id u a lly w e r e h a rm le s s . U ni ted Stat es v. R am i rez , 426 F . 3d 1344, 1 3 5 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . B e c aus e , a s w e di s c us s e d i nf r a , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notm a ke as e r i e s of c u m u la tiv e e rr o r s , L e e ’s c u m u la tiv e e f f e c t a r g u m e n t n e c e s s a r ily f a ils . I V. Ei g ht h A m e ndm e nt9

L e e n e x t m a in ta in s th a t h is s e n te n c e v io la te s th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t's pr ohi bi t i on a ga i ns tc rue l a nd unus ua l puni s hm e ntbe c aus e §§ 841 a nd 851 a l l ow f ora rbi tr a ry appl i c a t i on of the m a nda t ory l i f

e s e nt e nc e e nha nc e m e nt , i n tha tthe de c i s i on w he the rt o s e e k a n e nha nc e d s e nt e nc e “ de pe nds on the w hi m of the p r o s e c u to rin th e d e f

e n d a n t's in d iv id u a l c a s e .” B ec ause L ee ’ s s ent ence i s a ff i rm abl e und erei ther pl ai n err or or de no vo r e v ie w , w e n e e d n o t d e c id e w h e th e rL e e a d e q u a te ly p r e s e rv e d h is E ig h th A m e ndm e ntc ha l l e nge be l ow . N otonl y i s the r e no pr e c e de ntf r om thi s c ourtorthe S up re m e C ou rtes t abl i shi ng the prop osi t i on thatL ee advances on appeal , that m andat ory l i fe se nt ence s c on st i tut e c ruel and u nu sual pu ni shm ent , bo th thi s c ou rt a nd the S upr e m e C ourtha ve he l d tha tm a nda t ory l i f e s e nt e nc e s do notvi ol a t e the E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. See H arm e l i n v . Mi c hi

gan , 5 0 1 U .S . 9 5 7 , 9 9 4 , 9 5 1 1 1 S . C t. 2 6 8 0 , 2 7 0 1 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ; se e U n ite d S ta te s v . W

illis , 9 5 6 F .2 d 2 4 8 , 2 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc om m i tt e d no e rr or , pl a i n or o th e rw is e , w h e n it s e n te n c e d L e e to am a n d a to ry te rm o f lif e im p r is o n m e n t. V . C on s t i t u t i on al i t y of 21 U . S . C . § 841 an d 851 L ee ra ises th e f

o ll o w in g co n stitu ti o n al ch allen g es to th e d istrict co u rt’s s e nt e nc e e nha nc e m e ntf orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , a nd the r e f or e , ourr e vi e w i s f

or p la in e rr o ro n ly . See U n i ted S ta tes v. W

a rd , 4 8 6 F .3 d 1 2 1 2 , 1 2 2 1 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t.10

deni ed , 12 8 S . C t . 39 8 (20 07 ). A. F i f t h a n d S i x t h Am e n d me n t Cl a i ms L e e f ir s t a r g u e s th a t § 8 4 1 a n d § 8 5 1 v io la te th e F if th a n d S ix th A m endm ent s by a l l ow i ng for e nh ance d p enal t i es base d u po n p ri or conv i ct i on s that a r e n e ith e ra lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t n o rp r o v e n to aju ry b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t.

“ I n A lm enda rez- T orres v . U

ni ted Stat es , 52 3 U . S . 22 4, 11 8 S . C t . 12 19 [ ] ( 1 9 9 8 ) , th e S u p r e m e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t n e e d n o t a lle g e in its i nd i ctm entand n ee d n otprov e bey on d a re as on abl e dou btthata def endanthad pr i orc onvi c t i ons f

oradi s tr i c tc ourtt o us e thos e c onvi c t i ons f orpurpos e s of enhanci ng a s ent ence . ” U ni ted Stat es v. C am acho -I ba rquen , 410 F . 3d 1307, 1315 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W e c ons i s t e nt l y ha ve s t a t e d tha t“ w e a r e bound t o f ol l ow A lm enda rez- T

orres un l es s and un t i l the S up re m e C ou rti t se l f overrul es that deci si on . ” U

ni te d State s v . T

hom as , 2 4 2 F .3 d 1 0 2 8 , 1 0 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt th e r e f o r e c o m m itte d n o c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o rw h e n it enhanced L ee ’ s s ent ence base d o n p ri or qu al i fy i ng conv i ct i on s thatw er e notl i st ed in th e in d ic tm e n t. B. Se pa r a t i o n o f

Po w e r s D o c t r i ne L ee ar gu es addi t i on al l y that , by subj ec t i ng enhancem ent s t o p rose cut ori al11

di sc re t i on , and d epri vi ng di stri ctcourt s of the abi l i ty t o i m po se any other s ent ence abse ntfurther a ct i on by the prosecut or, §§ 84 1 and 85 1 g i ve prosecut ors the po w er to a lte rth e p e n a lty a tta c h e d to ap a rtic u la ro f f e n s e , a n d th e r e f

o r e u n la w f

u lly de l e ga t e the j udi c i a l f

unc t i on of

s e nt e nc i ng t o the e xe c ut i ve br a nc h. W e h a v e h e ld th a t th e d is c r e tio n c o n f e rr e d u p o n ap r o s e c u to ru n d e r§ 8 5 1 to de t e rm i ne w he the rapa rt i c ul a rde f e nda ntw i l l be s ubj e c tt o the s t a tut ory m a xi m um

“ i s an i nt egra l fe ature of the cr i m i nal j ust i ce sy st em , and i s app ropri at e, so l on g as i ti s notbase d u po n i m prop erfa ct ors. ” U ni ted Stat es v. C es

pedes , 151 F . 3d 1329, 1333 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng U n ite d S ta tes v . L a B o n te , 5 2 0 U .S . 7 5 1 , 1 1 7 S . C t. 16 73 (199 7)). I n lig h t o f

o u re s tab lis h e d p r e c e d e n t, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id no tpl ai nl y e rri n enh anci ng L ee ’ s s ent ence un der § 84 1 and § 8 51 . F or the abov es ta te d r e a s o n s , w e a f

f irm L e e ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . AF F I RME D.