Opinion ID: 691069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State Sentences for Theft, After Probation Revocation

Text: 30 When Mr. Brassell pleaded guilty to the tax conspiracy, he was serving state prison time for theft, after his probation for these convictions had been revoked. However, by the time of federal sentencing, the sentences for theft had expired and Mr. Brassell was serving the state sentences for forgery and burglary. Nevertheless, in deciding to impose the tax conspiracy sentence consecutively to Mr. Brassell's state sentences, the district court reasoned that [t]he court does not believe that his federal sentence should be effectively reduced by virtue of Mr. Brassell's state time for the crimes on which he was on probation when he committed his federal crime. (Sentencing Memo. at 3). 31 However, because the sentences imposed pursuant to the revocation of Mr. Brassell's probation had expired by the time of federal sentencing, they cannot be considered a prior undischarged term of imprisonment under Sec. 5G1.3. It is unclear to us the extent to which the theft sentences played a role in the decision to impose a consecutive sentence on Mr. Brassell. If the district court believed that the federal sentence did not reflect adequately the prior criminal history of Mr. Brassell, then the court should have provided the requisite reasoning and departed upward from the guideline range.