Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/656/153/184755/
Timestamp: 2017-11-22 16:44:42
Document Index: 455483065

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 692', '§ 696', '§ 963', '§ 846', '§ 2421', '§ 1072', '§ 841', '§ 4704', '§ 2553', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Morris O'neal Davis, Defendant-appellant, 656 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1981) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fifth Circuit › 1981 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Morris O'neal Davis, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Morris O'neal Davis, Defendant-appellant, 656 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1981)
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 656 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1981)
Before FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr. and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and SCOTT* , District Judge.
Morris O'Neal Davis appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute quaaludes, both in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Davis complains (1) that the district court committed plain error by giving certain jury instructions; (2) that multiple sentences for the simultaneous possession of two drugs are not authorized by the statute; and (3) that the sentence imposed under one count exceeded the punishment permitted by statute. We affirm Davis's conviction and multiple sentences, but because the trial court imposed a sentence on one count in excess of that permitted by statute, we remand with instruction to resentence Davis.BACKGROUND
Davis was convicted in the district court on two counts of possession of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). Count I charged Davis with possessing with intent to distribute marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance. Count II charged Davis with possessing with intent to distribute quaaludes, a Schedule II controlled substance. The trial court sentenced Davis under Count II to one year confinement, followed by a special parole term. The district court sentenced Davis under Count I to six years confinement, to be followed by a special parole term. Upon Davis's release from the confinement imposed under Count II, the period of incarceration under Count I would begin.
Davis raises three points on appeal. First, he contends that a jury instruction on specific intent, to which no objection was raised at trial, was so narrow in scope as to constitute plain error. Second, Davis argues that although he was in possession of two drugs, this possession constituted one act, i. e., possession of a controlled substance. Relying on Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 75 S. Ct. 620, 99 L. Ed. 905 (1955), Davis contends that imposition of consecutive sentences for simultaneous possession of two drugs is not authorized by 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Finally, Davis contends that the trial court's sentence of six years incarceration for possession of marijuana under Count I exceeds the punishment permitted by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (B).
We now turn to the more difficult question of whether Congress intended to allow consecutive sentencing for a simultaneous possession of two types of drugs. "If a federal court exceeds its own authority by imposing multiple punishments not authorized by Congress, it violates not only the specific guarantee against double jeopardy, but also the constitutional principle of separation of powers in a manner that trenches particularly harshly on individual liberty." Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 689, 100 S. Ct. 1432, 1436-1437, 63 L. Ed. 2d 715 (1980).
The government argues that the test enunciated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932), applies to this case and authorizes the multiple sentences imposed upon Davis. This assertion is erroneous. Blockburger's conviction resulted from a single sale of narcotics in violation of two statutory provisions, 26 U.S.C. § 692 prohibiting the sale of a drug not in the original stamped package, and 26 U.S.C. § 696 prohibiting the sale of a drug not in pursuance of a written order of the purchaser. He received consecutive sentences for violation of these statutes. The Court held that "where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not." 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S. Ct. at 182. Applying this test, the Court found that although there was only one sale, two offenses were committed because two statutory sections were violated,1 and therefore consecutive sentencing was in order.2
The Court's latest expression of the Blockburger rule is found in Albernaz v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 101 S. Ct. 1137, 67 L. Ed. 2d 275 (1981), also relied upon by the government. Albernaz was convicted on separate counts of conspiracy to import marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963 and conspiracy to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Consecutive sentences were imposed. Applying the Blockburger test, the Court found that conviction of each section required elements of proof not required by the other, and therefore Congress had intended to permit the imposition of consecutive sentences for violation of these two sections.
Davis's argument regarding consecutive sentencing raises a constitutional as well as a statutory issue. The Supreme Court has recently debated the constitutional theory behind use of multiple sentencing. In Whalen, the majority opinion stated, "The Double Jeopardy Clause at the very least precludes federal courts from imposing consecutive sentences unless authorized by Congress to do so." 445 U.S. at 689, 100 S. Ct. at 1436. (emphasis added). Justice Blackmun, in a separate opinion, wrote: "I believe that the Court should take the opportunity presented by this case ... to hold clearly that the question of what punishments are constitutionally permissible is not different from the question of what punishment the Legislative Branch intended to be imposed." 445 U.S. at 698, 100 S. Ct. at 1441.
Justice Blackmun's suggestion was adopted by the Court in Albernaz, where it stated, "(T)he question of what punishments are constitutionally permissible is not different from the question of what punishment the Legislative Branch intended to be imposed. Where Congress intended ... to impose multiple punishment, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution." --- U.S. at ----, 101 S. Ct. at 1145.
It thus appears that the Supreme Court has decided that Congress can never violate the double jeopardy clause in imposing criminal penalties. Rather, the double jeopardy clause is aimed at prosecutors and judges to ensure that a defendant is not placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense. The Blockburger test, then, is merely a tool used to divine legislative intent, rather than to test the constitutionality of statutory punishments. This reading of the Albernaz majority opinion is bolstered by language in a concurring opinion by three Justices which takes exception to the statement quoted above: "No matter how clearly it spoke, Congress could not constitutionally provide for cumulative punishments unless each statutory offense required proof of a fact that the other did not under the criterion of Blockburger." --- U.S. at ----, 101 S. Ct. at 1145-46.
More applicable to our present discussion than Blockburger is Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 75 S. Ct. 620, 99 L. Ed. 905 (1955), the case Davis relies upon. Bell received consecutive sentences on two counts of violating the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421-2424, making it unlawful to transport in interstate commerce "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose." Bell transported two women on the same trip and in the same vehicle, and therefore claimed that he had committed only a single offense and could not be subjected to cumulative punishment. The Court stated that while Congress could constitutionally make the simultaneous transportation of more than one woman in violation of the Mann Act liable to cumulative punishment for each woman, the question was whether it was Congress's intent to do so. Finding that the statute could be read as imposing either single or multiple punishment, the Court found in favor of the defendant. The Court stated,
349 U.S. at 83, 75 S. Ct. at 622.
The Fifth Circuit followed Bell in United States v. Deaton, 468 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 934, 93 S. Ct. 1386, 35 L. Ed. 2d 597 (1973). Deaton was convicted and given multiple sentences for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1072, which makes it unlawful to harbor or conceal "any prisoner after his escape from the custody of the Attorney General or from a federal penal or correctional institution." Deaton harbored two escapees at the same time. Citing Bell for the rule of lenity, the Fifth Circuit held that the use of the adjective "any" and a singular noun and pronoun was "not sufficient authority for a judicial pronouncement that Congress clearly intended that the number of sentences a man may be given for a single course of action of concealment could be determined by adding up the number of escapees concealed." 468 F.2d at 546.
In reviewing 21 U.S.C. § 841 to determine Congressional intent, we are guided, as were the Bell and Deaton Courts, by the rule of lenity. "This policy of lenity means that the (courts) will not interpret a federal criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what Congress intended." Ladner v. United States, 358 U.S. 169, 178, 79 S. Ct. 209, 214, 3 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1958) (holding that the single discharge of a shotgun wounding two federal officers constituted only a single act of assault). "The (Supreme) Court has emphasized that the 'touchstone' of the rule of lenity 'is statutory ambiguity.' ... Where Congress has manifested its intention, (the courts) may not manufacture ambiguity in order to defeat that intent." Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381, 387, 100 S. Ct. 2247, 2252, 65 L. Ed. 2d 205, 211 (1980) (citation omitted). "(T)he principle of lenient construction does not exist to 'destroy the spirit and force of the law which the legislature intended to enact.' " United States v. Noe, 634 F.2d 860, 862 (5th Cir. 1981) (quoting American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U.S. 284, 293, 28 S. Ct. 72, 75, 52 L. Ed. 208 (1907)). The rule of lenity may be applied only if, after reviewing all sources from which legislative intent may be gleaned, the statute remains truly ambiguous. Noe. See United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 92 S. Ct. 515, 30 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1971).
One of the diverse laws collected into the Act was 26 U.S.C. § 4704 (1954). Before reorganization of the U.S. Code in 1954, this provision was found in 26 U.S.C. § 2553(a), which was construed by the Fifth Circuit in Normandale v. United States, 201 F.2d 463 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 999, 73 S. Ct. 1141, 97 L. Ed. 1405 (1953). That statute made it unlawful to "purchase, sell, dispense, or distribute opium, isonipecaine, coco leaves, opiate, or any compound, salt, derivative, or preparation thereof, except in or from the original stamped package." 201 F.2d at 464. The Fifth Circuit held that Congress intended in passing this statute to provide for multiple sentencing for possession of heroin hydrochloride and raw opium. It is true that the older statute, by listing the proscribed narcotics separately, provided separate statutory segments requiring use of the Blockburger test,3 while the current statute lumps all drugs together under the term "a controlled substance." It would be an anomaly, however, to find that the newer statute, which subsumed the older statute, is less flexible, especially in light of Congress's stated intent of providing trial judges with more flexibility in sentencing.
We finally come to one point in this appeal on which all parties are in agreement, the question of whether the punishment imposed by the trial judge for possession of marijuana, six years incarceration, exceeded the punishment allowed by statute. The statute which sets penalties, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (B) reads: "In the case of a controlled substance in schedule I and II which is not a narcotic drug ... such person shall be sentenced to a term of not more than five years, a fine of not more than $15,000, or both." While a harsher sentence is provided for an offender having one or more prior convictions, the record shows that this was Davis's first offense. The trial judge sentenced Davis to six years confinement for possession of marijuana, while the maximum punishment allowed by statute is five years. We therefore remand this case for resentencing in accordance with 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (B).
The Blockburger test has been applied to several offenses enumerated in one statutory section as well as to offenses named in separate sections. See, e. g., United States v. Goodman, 605 F.2d 870 (5th Cir. 1979); Normandale v. United States, 201 F.2d 463 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 345 U.S. 999, 73 S. Ct. 1141, 97 L. Ed. 1405 (1953)
The Fifth Circuit was faced with a similar situation in United States v. Hernandez, 591 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1979). The defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute and actual distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). The only evidence of the possession was the sale which constituted the distribution. The en banc court held that in this narrow set of circumstances, the two crimes merge into a single offense for which only one sentence may be imposed. In Hernandez, proof of one offense was a prerequisite to proof of the other. In this case, proof of each offense is independent of proof of the other