Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/129/
Timestamp: 2016-07-24 10:48:30
Document Index: 231327276

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 2113', '§ 924', '§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924']

Deal v. United States :: 508 U.S. 129 (1993) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center Log In
› Deal v. United States
Deal v. United States 508 U.S. 129 (1993)
OCTOBER TERM, 1992SyllabusDEAL v. UNITED STATESCERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 91-8199. Argued March 1, 1993-Decided May 17, 1993On the basis of his use of a gun in committing six bank robberies on different dates, petitioner Deal was convicted, in a single proceeding, of six counts of carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(I). Section 924(c)(I) prescribes a 5-year prison term for the first such conviction (in addition to the punishment provided for the crime of violence) and requires a 20year sentence "[i]n the case of [a] second or subsequent conviction under this subsection." The District Court sentenced Deal to 5 years' imprisonment on the first § 924(c)(I) count and to 20 years on each of the five other counts, the terms to run consecutively. The Court of Appeals affirmed.Held: Deal's second through sixth convictions in a single proceeding arose "[i]n the case of his second or subsequent conviction" within the meaning of § 924(c)(I). There is no merit to his contention that the language of § 924(c)(I) is facially ambiguous and should therefore be construed in his favor under the rule of lenity. In context, "conviction" unambiguously refers to the finding of guilt that necessarily precedes the entry of a final judgment of conviction. If it referred, as Deal contends, to "judgment of conviction," which by definition includes both the adjudication of guilt and the sentence, the provision would be incoherent, prescribing that a sentence which has already been imposed shall be 5 or 20 years longer than it was. Deal's reading would have the strange consequence of giving a prosecutor unreviewable discretion either to impose or to waive the enhanced sentence by opting to charge and try a defendant either in separate prosecutions or under a single multi count indictment. The provision also cannot be read to impose an enhanced sentence only for an offense committed after a previous sentence has become final. While lower courts have held that statutes providing enhancement for "subsequent offenses" apply only when a second offense has been committed after conviction for the first, those decisions depend on the fact that it cannot legally be known that an "offense" has been committed until there has been a conviction. The present statute does not use the term "offense," and so does not require a criminal act after the first conviction; it merely requires a conviction after the first conviction. Nor is the rule oflenity called for on grounds that the total length
130of Deal's sentence (105 years) is "glaringly unjust." Under any conceivable reading of § 924(c)(I), some criminals convicted of six armed bank robberies would receive a sentence of that length. It is not "glaringly unjust" to refuse to give Deal a lesser sentence merely because he escaped apprehension and conviction until the sixth crime had been committed. Pp. 131-137.954 F.2d 262, affirmed.SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and WHITE, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 137.Dola J. Young argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Roland E. Dahlin II and H. Michael Sokolow.Miguel A. Estrada argued the cause for the United States.With him on the brief were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Mueller, Deputy Solicitor General Bryson, and Robert J. Erickson.JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. Between January and April 1990, petitioner committed six bank robberies on six different dates in the Houston, Texas, area. In each robbery, he used a gun. Petitioner was convicted of six counts of bank robbery, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2113(a) and (d), six counts of carrying and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, § 924(c), and one count of being a felon in possession of firearms, § 922(g). Title 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1) (1988 ed., Supp. III) provides:
131Full Text of Opinion
A defendant who is convicted in a single proceeding of multiple violations of 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1) for using a gun during a crime of violence is subject to statute's provisions imposing a more severe sentence for a "second or subsequent conviction."	Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.
A defendant who is convicted in a single proceeding of multiple violations of 18 U. S. C. § 924(c)(1...	Read the full annotations for this case.