MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2015 ME 109 Docket: Ken

- 14

- 362 Argued : June 16, 2015 Decided: August 11, 2015

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER , MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR , and HJELM, JJ.

STATE OF MAINE

v. WADE R. HOOVER

JABAR , J. [¶1] Wade R. Hoover appeals from an order of the trial court ( Murphy, J .) denying his motion to dismiss the State’s indictments of thirteen counts of gross sexual assault (Class A) , 17

- A M.R.S. § 253(1)(C) (2014) . Hoover argues that the State’s indictments violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy because (1) he has already been punished for the sexually assaultive conduct by way of his federal prison sen tence related to federa l child pornography convictions; and (2) the s tate and federal investigative and prosecutorial agencies colluded to the extent that they ceased to operate as separate sovereigns, thus triggering an exception to the “dual sovereignty” doctrine of double jeopardy jurisprudence. We affirm.2 I. BACKGROUND [¶2 ] Viewed in the lig ht most favorable to the State, the motion record supports the following facts. See Heon v. State , 2007 ME 131, ¶ 5, 931 A.2d 1068

. [¶3 ] On October 3, 2012, U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents and Maine State Police (MSP) officer s jointly conducted a consented

- to search of computers at an office in Augusta, after the MSP Computer Crimes Unit received a tip that a computer registered to that offi ce was the source of child pornography. The investigation led to Hoover , who admitted to his involvement.
I nvestigators discovered on Hoover’s computer hundreds of images of child pornography as well as videos that depicted Hoover sexually assaulting chi ldren. State police immediately took Hoover into custody on a charge of possession of sexually explicit materials (Class C) , 17

- A M.R.S. § 284(1)(C) (2014). [¶4 ] Hoover wa s arraigned on the charge of possession of sexually explicit materials on October 5, 2012. That same day, federal agents obtained a warrant for Hoover’s arrest. The warrant was not immediately executed, however, and instead was filed as a detainer so that Hoover could be taken into federal custody if the
State dismissed its charge or if H oover were to be released from s tate custody. [¶5 ] Federal and s tate authorities continued to investiga te Hoover while he remained in s tate custody bet ween October and December 2012, with HSI agents and MSP detectives often conducting joint searches and interviews

. During that3 time, t he Kennebec County District Attorney’s Office communicated with federal prosecutors regarding the status of the State’s case against Hoover. An October 9, 2012, Kennebec County District Attorney ’s Office intern al memorandum read s : Feds will be taking the production piece

. . . There will also be potentially a [gross sexual assault charge] in Skowhegan . . . [D] o not let [Hoover] plead to [possession of sexually explicit materials] before all State charges are br ought. [Dismiss] if he does. In early November, the Kennebec County District Attorney told an Assistant
U nited States Attorney that the s tate charge would be dismissed in December so that the federal charges could be pursued. The D

. A

. ’s handwritten note on the State’s criminal complaint for possession of sexually explicit materials reads: “We will dismiss to federal prosecution on December 1st.” [¶6 ] Hoov er remained in s tate custody until he went into fed eral custody on December 7, 2012 , after the State dismissed the charge of possession of sex ually explicit materials

. On February 5, 2013, he waived federal indictment and pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a child, 18 U.S.C. S. § 2251(a), (e)(1) ( LEXIS through PL 114

- 37, approved 7 /20/ 15 ) (“production” charge), and possession of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. S. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) (LEXIS through
PL 114

- 37, approved 7/20/ 15 ) (“possession” charge). Sentencing was scheduled for July 2, 2013.4 [¶7 ] On March 14, 2013, the Somerset County Grand Jury indicted Hoover on one count of gr oss sexual assault (Class A) , 17

- A M.R.S. § 253(1)(C), and on May 30 the Kennebec County Grand Jury indicted him on twelve additional counts of gross sexual assault (Class A) , id

. On June 25, 2013, h e was arraigned on and pleaded not guilty to all of the gross sexual assault charges. [¶8 ] On July 2, 2013, the United S tates District Court for the District of Maine ( Woodcock, J .) sentenced Hoover to 360 months in prison o n the production count and 120 months in prison on the possession count, to be served consecutively, as well as a lifetime term of supervised release. In calculating Hoover’s sentence the United States District Court expres sly considered Hoover’s sexual a ssault of the young victims as aggravating factor s that increased his
sentence. [¶9 ] On February 13, 2014, Hoover filed a motion to dismiss the State ’s indictments for gross sexual assault, arguing that the State’s prosecution subjected him to double jeopardy in violation of both U.S. Const. amend. V and Me. Const. art. I, § 8. After a hearing, t he court denied Hoover’s motion by written order

. The court found that , al though Hoover’s “federal sentence was directly and significantly increased as a consequence of his sexual assault of the two v ictims” such that “the current [s] tate prosecution, if successful, could result in [Hoover] being punished twice for the same con d uct, ” the dual sovereignty doctrine5 nonetheless permitted the State’s prosecution. The court rejected Hoover’s argument that the “ Bartkus exception to the general rule allowing double punishment by separate soverei gns” required dismissal of the S tate ’s ch arges, s ee Bartkus v. Illinois , 359 U.S. 121 , 123

- 24 (1959), finding that “[t]here is simply no evidence . . . that the s tate prosecutors in this case have been so dominated or manipulated by the prosecutors in the federal case” such that t he exception wou ld apply, s ee United States v. Guzman , 85 F.3d 823, 827 (1st Cir. 1996)

. Hoover appeals.
II. DISCUSSION [¶1 0 ] Hoover contends that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss 1 because the State’s criminal charges violate his constitutional protecti ons against double jeopardy. See U.S. Const. amend. V; Me. Const. art. I, § 8. Specifically, he contends that (1) his federal prison sentence already subjected him to punishment for the same criminal acts for which the State now seeks to punish him, and (2) the dual sovereignty doctrine does not permit the State ’s prosecution because the doctrine’s so - called “ Bartkus exception” applies. “ Whether a criminal prosecution violates the state or federal constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy is a

1 Although Hoover appeals from an interlocutory order, “[a] n order denying a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds is immediately appealable as an except ion to the final judgment rule.” State v. Davis , 580 A.2d 163, 164 n.1 (Me. 1990).6 question of law that is reviewed de novo. ” State v. Mitchell , 1998 ME 128, ¶ 4, 712 A.2d 1033.
A. Duplicative Punishment [¶1 1 ] The double jeopardy clause bars “multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Labbe , 2009 ME 94, ¶ 4, 979 A.2d 693 (qu otation marks omitted)

. T he traditional test for determining whether multiple punishments are for the “same offense” for double jeopar dy purposes

— the “same

- elements” test , sometimes referred to as the “ Blockburger test ”

— “ inquires whether each offense
cont ains an element no t contained in the other; if not, they are the same offen[s] e and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution. ” United States v. Dixon , 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993) (citing Blockburger v. United
States , 284 U.S. 299 (1932)). As Hoover concedes, the same

- elements test is inapplicable here because the s tate crime of gross sexual assault and the federal crimes of sexual exploitation of a child and possession of child pornography contain different elements

. Compare 17

- A M.R.S. § 253(1)(C) , with 18 U.S.C. S

. § § 2251(a), (e)(1) , 2252A(a)(5)(B). [¶1 2 ] However, citing Witte v. United S tates , 515 U.S. 389 (1995), Hoover argues that, because the sexual assaults weighed so heavily in the federal court’s sentencing decision on the production and possession charges, the State’s current7 prosecution related to that same conduct presents the risk of unconstitutional duplicative punishment. [¶1 3 ] In Witte , the defendant was convicted of federal marijuana distribution charges. Id

. at 391

- 93. In imposing a sentence on the marijuana conviction, the federal sentencing court took into account the defendant’s prior conduct related to the importation of cocaine because it considered the cocaine

- related activities to be “ part of the sam e continuing conspiracy, ” and therefore “relevant conduct” for sentencing purposes. Id . at 393

- 94. The defendant was later indicted on cocaine importation charges based on the same conduct that the sentencing court had previously considered. Id . at 394

- 95. [¶1 4 ] The United S tates Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy
C lause was not implicated by the second indictment , reasoning that “ use of evidence of related criminal conduct to enhance a defendant’ s sentence for a separate crime within the authorized statutory limits does not constitute punishment for that conduct within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. ” Id . at 399. Rather, the Court held, a defendant in that situation is “punished, for double jeopardy purposes, only for the off ense of which the defendant is convicted.” Id . at 397. However, the Court indicated that if the enhancing role played by the relevant conduct is too significant, “ consideration of that conduct in8 sentencing [may] become a tail which wags the dog of the s ubstantive offense.” Id . at 403 ( quoting McMillan v. Pennsylvania , 477 U.S. 79, 88 (1986) )

. [¶1 5 ] Here, the United S tates District Court expressly considered Hoover’s sexually assaultive conduct in sentencing Hoover on the federal production and
posse ssi on charges, and substantially increased Hoover’s sentence as a result of that conduct. If Hoover’s sexually assaultive conduct effectively became the operative factor in Hoover’s federal sentence, the State ’s current prosecution might, as the trial court found, result in Hoover being punished twice for the same criminal conduct. 2 [¶1 6 ] However, we need not decide whether the sexual assaults became the tail that wagged the dog of the substantive federal offenses. Even if the State’s current prosecution subjects Hoover to the risk of being punished twice for the same conduct, such duplicative punishment is constitutional when, as is the case here, the punishments are imposed by se parate sovereigns

. B. Dual Sovereig nty [¶1 7 ] The “dual sovereignty doctrine” provides that “ prosecutions under the laws of separate sovereigns do not, in the la nguage of the Fifth Amendment, subject the defendant for the same offen[s] e to be twice put in jeopardy.” Mitchell ,

2 We note that if Hoov er is eventually convicted of the gross sexual assault charges, the trial cour t could consider, as a basis for a downward departure in the resulting sentence, that the sexually assaultive conduct underlying the offenses has previously been taken into accou nt in sentencing for a different offense. See Witte v. United States , 515 U.S. 389, 405

- 06 (1995).9 1998 ME 128, ¶ 6, 712 A.2d 1033 (quotation marks omitted) . Thus, successive federal and state prosecutions and punishments for the same conduct may proceed without violating constitutional protections against double jeopardy. See United
S tates v. Lanza , 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922); State v. Castonguay , 240 A.2d 747,
749

- 50 (Me. 1968). However, Hoover contends that Bartkus , 359 U.S. at 123

- 24, provides an exception to the dual sovereignty doctrine when a state prosecution is merely a “ sham ” or a cover for a federal prose cution su ch that the state acts only as

a “ tool ” of the federal entity

. [¶1 8 ] Contrary to Hoover’s argument , there is no evidence of a “sham” prosecution here , nor is there evidence that the s tate prosecutors acted merely as “tool s ” of the federal prosecutors

. See id

. at 123. Rather, the record reveals many instances of each sovereign acting to protect its own interests, and collaborating when those interests intersected. Guzman , 85 F.3d at 828 (1st Cir. 1996) ( “Cooperative law enforcement effort s between independe nt sovereigns are commendable, and, without more, such efforts will not furnish a legally adequate basis for invoking the Bartkus exception to the dual sovereign rule.” )

. Altho ugh federal authorities benefit ed from the State ’s maintaini ng of custody over Hoover , 3
the record shows that the State’s decision to immediately arrest Hoove r was

3 The court heard testimony that the State’s custody of Hoover allowed federal authorities more time to investigate Hoover without triggering federal Speed y Trial Act timelines. See 18 U.S.C.S. § 3161(b) (LEXIS through PL 114

- 40, approved 7/30/ 15 ).10 motiva ted not by a desire to act as a tool for federal prosecutors, but by public safety concerns. Further, t he Kennebec County D.A.’s office was already considering charging Hoover with gross sexual assault shortly after Hoover’s arrest in October 2012, and it ultimately pursued those charges

. [¶1 9 ] Because there is no evidence to sustain Hoover’s contention as to the applicability of the so

- cal led Bartkus exception to the dual sovereignty doctrine, double jeopardy pri nciples do not bar the present s tate prosecution, regardless of any potential for duplicative punishment. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.

On the briefs and at oral argument:
Jamesa J. Dr ake, Esq., Drake Law, LLC, Auburn, for appellant Wade R. Hoover Meaghan Maloney, District A ttorney, Prosecutorial District IV, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine

Kennebec County Superior Court docket number CR

- 2013

- 486 Somerset County Superior Court docket number CR

- 2013

- 72 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY