Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/709/1298/7206/
Timestamp: 2019-10-13 22:38:24
Document Index: 295142524

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 848', '§ 848', '§ 848', '§ 848', '§ 3731', '§ 848', '§ 1962', '§ 1963', '§ 848', '§ 848']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Catarino Murillo, Defendant-appellee, 709 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1983) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1983 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Catarino Murillo, Defendant-appellee
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Catarino Murillo, Defendant-appellee, 709 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1983)
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 709 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1983) Argued and Submitted Jan. 3, 1983. Decided July 6, 1983
This appeal is one of three spawned by the heroin distribution prosecution of Catarino Murillo. In an unpublished memorandum, Nos. 81-1727 and 82-5304, we affirmed Murillo's conviction and the district court's denial of a motion to intervene filed on behalf of Murillo's minor children. In this appeal the government challenges the district court's order exempting certain property from the jury's special forfeiture verdict under 21 U.S.C. § 848. We reverse.
On October 14, 1981, following a four-week jury trial, Murillo was convicted of, among other things, supervising a continuing criminal heroin enterprise in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848. That conviction required the jury to deliberate further regarding the criminal forfeiture of properties purchased by Murillo. See 21 U.S.C. § 848(a) (2).1 On October 15, the jury returned special forfeiture verdicts for all the properties listed in the indictment. These properties included five parcels of real property and four vehicles which the jury found to have been purchased with profits from Murillo's continuing criminal enterprises.
Murillo was sentenced on December 7, 1981. At that time, the district court declined to follow the jury's special forfeiture verdicts as to one of Murillo's houses and one of his cars. The government filed a motion under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to correct an illegal sentence. It argued that the trial court had no authority to exempt properties forfeited by the jury under 21 U.S.C. § 848. The trial court denied that motion and the government appealed. Our jurisdiction is based on 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (1976). See United States v. Godoy, 678 F.2d 84, 87 (9th Cir. 1982), appeal filed 82-538 (Sept. 27, 1982).
Murillo does not argue that the district court had discretion generally to exempt property from forfeiture. Although the issue is apparently one of first impression under 21 U.S.C. § 848, this court recently held that the district court has no such discretion in a forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (1976) (RICO). United States v. Godoy, 678 F.2d 84 (9th Cir. 1982), appeal filed 82-538 (Sept. 27, 1982). In Godoy, we adopted the Fifth Circuit's rationale in United States v. L'Hoste, 609 F.2d 796 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 833, 101 S. Ct. 104, 66 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1980), and held that the RICO forfeiture provision was mandatory.
The language of the two forfeiture provisions, which were enacted by the same Congress, is almost identical. Each plainly requires mandatory forfeiture. Section 848(a) (1) provides that anyone engaged "in a continuing criminal enterprise shall be sentenced [to a minimum of ten years] imprisonment, to a fine of not more than $100,000, and to the forfeiture prescribed in paragraph (2)." (emphasis added). Section 848(a) (2) repeats the mandatory language of paragraph one. In short, the L'Hoste analysis adopted in Godoy and applied to forfeitures under 18 U.S.C. § 1963 is equally applicable to forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 848. Both provisions are mandatory and leave no discretion in the district court.
21 U.S.C. § 848(a) provides:
In any event, criminal forfeiture under Sec. 848 operates in personam against the convicted defendant. United States v. Long, 654 F.2d 911 (3d Cir. 1981). The interest of one who received the property from the defendant with knowledge of the government's claim may be adversely affected, however. Id. at 916-17