Opinion ID: 4537855
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Change of Plea and Sentencing

Text: The district court accepted Bartolomeo's guilty plea and sentenced him in a combined proceeding held in May 1998. We describe each portion of that proceeding in turn.
Early in its change-of-plea colloquy with Bartolomeo, the sentencing court reviewed the charges against him and confirmed that Bartolomeo understood them. The court emphasized the jurytrial rights that Bartolomeo would be giving up by pleading guilty, and it noted the statutory minimum and maximum sentences applicable to the crimes charged. The court asked Bartolomeo if he understood the plea agreement, and Bartolomeo answered affirmatively. The court also generally described the Sentencing Guidelines, confirmed that Bartolomeo had discussed them with his attorney, 4 The parties do not explain why the state prosecutor's agreement applied only to the later incident, but the discrepancy is not material to our analysis. - 7 - and noted that unless there's something very special, very evil, really, about you, and they say there is in this case, I can't go above the top of that range and then I can't go below the bottom of the range. The court then questioned the government's attorney on the Guidelines calculation, as follows: COURT: And I'm going to ask [Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA)] Hobart, unless it's done here in the plea agreement, and it does not appear to be done, despite the joint recommendation for an upward departure, before we go any further he needs to know where the sentencing guidelines put him. Would you calculate them in the aggregate for me very briefly, bottom line, giving him credit for acceptance of responsibility. AUSA: Yes, your Honor. Under the plea agreement I think, I believe the total offense level would be 32, going up three points for role in the offense and down three points for acceptance of responsibility. Without taking into account any career offender provisions, the maximum amount, maximum range would be 262 months in a criminal history category of VI. COURT: And your position is that he's at a criminal history category VI? AUSA: I believe that the probation department found that to be so, your Honor. COURT: Okay. So he's . . . at level 32, correct? AUSA: Correct, your Honor. COURT: Criminal history category VI?5 AUSA: Correct. COURT: So that gives a minimum -- AUSA: That's just upon the drug quantity. And then if the probation department's 5 Contrary to this agreement on CHC VI, that category applied only to the career-offender classification. In the sentencing portion of the proceeding, the district court noted that Bartolomeo's CHC was III without that enhancement. See infra. - 8 - determination were accepted, he was found to be a career offender, his base offense level would be set at 37, three levels reduction for acceptance of responsibility for 34, which would produce a range of 262 to 327. COURT: All right, but . . . [d]on't you have to give notice that you're prosecuting him as a career offender? You don't? AUSA: No, you don't. COURT: All right. So now if he pleads guilty to these, what is your position as to whether he's a career offender? AUSA: Neither myself nor Mr. Natola [defense counsel] filed any objections to that portion of the presentence report. COURT: Which calculates that he is. AUSA: Yes. COURT: All right. So really we're talking 262 to 327 months under the sentencing guidelines. AUSA: Right. And not to speak for Mr. Natola, but in light of the agreement, I filed a joint motion for upward departure, there wasn't any reason for Mr. Natola to object to that determination. COURT: And I fully understand that. It's just so important to me that Mr. Bartolomeo understands each step in this procedure. So, 262 months under the sentencing guidelines, if I don't do anything, it's 21 years and some months, 327 months, the range is 21 years and some months to 25 years and some months, based upon what I'm told.6 Is that how the sentencing guidelines have been explained to you? BARTOLOMEO: Yes, sir. The court then focused specifically on the joint motion for upward departure, observing that the court could depart upward even without a motion but advising Bartolomeo that when they both tell me that I ought to depart upward, I have to tell you it's 6 In fact, 262 months is nearly twenty-two years, and 327 months is about twenty-seven years. - 9 - much more likely that I will. Asked if he understood that, as a functional matter now, . . . you're really looking at 35 years in prison if you plead guilty, Bartolomeo responded, Yes, I do, sir. The court then pointed out that the upward departure was based on the incident involving a William Michaels, obtained assurance from the government that both federal and state authorities had agreed not to prosecute Bartolomeo for that conduct in exchange for his guilty plea on the drug charges, and elicited Bartolomeo's admission that the depiction of the drug offenses presented in the PSR was accurate. The court then accepted Bartolomeo's guilty plea to the fourteen drug and criminal forfeiture counts, finding that the plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made.
The sentencing portion of the proceeding began with the court's description of its intended approach: COURT: I think in framing your arguments I should say that, one, though I'm going to do the sentencing guideline calculations, I am disposed to depart upward on the grounds of the joint motion; and two, implicit in my acceptance of the plea after a pre-plea presentence report, I am disposed to accept the joint recommendation and sentence no more nor less severely. Now, with that in mind, I'm going to do the calculations required by the sentencing guidelines. If anyone would differ with them, - 10 - please call that to my attention and I will, I will entertain it right at that time. The base offense level in this case is 32. I am adjusting upward by three levels for Mr. Bartolomeo's role in the offense finding that he is a manager or supervisor of this, these drug transactions. I am going to adjust downward three levels for his acceptance of responsibility, . . . taking us back to a total offense level of 32. . . . I do find that he is a career offender and that applying the career offender guidelines his corresponding offense level is 37. As he is a career offender, his criminal history category, which otherwise would be III, is calculated at VI, which gives us a sentencing range of not less than -- AUSA: He would also receive a three[-]level decrease, your Honor, for acceptance. His total offense level would be 34, not 37. COURT: Is that right? The probation officer? That's where you -- PROBATION: Yes, your Honor. COURT: -- calculate it in? PROBATION: Yes. COURT: . . . That gives us a sentencing range as we discussed with Mr. Bartolomeo of not less than 262 nor more than 327 months, and tentatively that's how I calculate the guidelines. You accept that, Mr. Hobart? AUSA: Yes, your Honor. COURT: You accept that, Mr. Natola? NATOLA: Yes, I do, your Honor. The court then heard from both counsel, beginning with the government. AUSA Hobart explained that [t]he factual basis for the government's upward departure involves the death of William Michaels on July 29, 1995, and he went on to detail the circumstances of that incident, including Bartolomeo's subsequent flight to New York and his time spent in hiding there. Defense - 11 - counsel added only a brief comment, expressing agreement with the Guidelines calculation and also with the factual basis for the motion for upward departure. Before allowing Bartolomeo to speak, the court noted that this William Michaels thing . . . would be the basis of my upward departing, and it therefore asked Bartolomeo if it were true[] that you intentionally struck William Michaels on July 29, 1995, using your vehicle while he was riding a motorcycle? Bartolomeo answered, Yes, it is. The court reiterated the state of mind question, asking, And you did that intentionally, ran him down intentionally? Bartolomeo responded, Yes, I did. Accepting the court's invitation to speak at that point, Bartolomeo spoke at some length about being a man with fierce loyalty, learned from his parents and siblings, and my brothers that are here from the Hells Angels. Among his other statements, Bartolomeo asserted that, if you told me today that I could go home to my family if I would denounce being a member of the Hells Angels, I wouldn't do it. I'm a Hells Angel, in my heart and my bones. Bartolomeo indicated disapproval for criminal defendants who take the easy way out and cooperate with the government in exchange for a reduced sentence, and, accusing the undercover law enforcement agent of betray[ing] him, asserted that he could never do that to somebody. - 12 - Immediately following Bartolomeo's remarks, the court sentenced him to thirty-five years' imprisonment on one count, and either 35 years or the maximum sentence on each of the remaining counts, with all sentences to run concurrently. The court directly addressed Bartolomeo to explain the sentence: You haven't got the first idea about loyalty. Don't sully the names of those who have served the nation by your conduct, your drug dealing, your spreading of poison throughout the community. You disgrace those who know what the meaning of loyalty is. Loyalty has to do with things greater than yourself. You have done nothing but serve your own needs as you perceived them at the time. You have shown no value for human life or health or care for anyone. You say that's the road you've chosen. So be it. In its Statement of Reasons issued with the judgment, the sentencing court listed the TOL as 32, the level applicable without career-offender status, but it listed the greater imprisonment range (262 to 327 months) and CHC (VI) that applied to the careeroffender guideline.