Opinion ID: 204743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Criminal History Scoring for Youthful Offenders: The Sentencing Guidelines

Text: In determining an offender's criminal history category, a district court is required to [a]dd 3 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(a). Separate provisions are made for computing criminal history categories for those whose previous offenses were committed before they reached the age of 18. Id. § 4A1.2(d) (Offenses Committed Prior to Age 18). The District Court applied the following provision in sentencing Conca: If the defendant was convicted as an adult and received a sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month, add 3 points under § 4A1.1(a) for each such sentence. Id. § 4A1.2(d)(1). As to the scoring for others who have committed offenses prior to age 18, the Guidelines provide for the addition of 2 points for each adult or juvenile sentence to confinement for at least 60 days if the offender has been released within five years of the commencement of the instant offense, id. § 4A1.2(d)(2)(A); and the addition of 1 point for each adult or juvenile sentence imposed within five years of the commencement of the instant offense not covered in the former provision, id. § 4A1.2(d)(2)(B). Accordingly, no criminal history points are scored for offenses committed prior to age 18 after the expiration of the five-year time period except if the defendant was convicted as an adult and the sentence received exceeded one year and one month. According to the Sentencing Guidelines, expunged convictions are not included in the calculation of a criminal history category, id. § 4A1.2(j), but may be considered under the provisions of § 4A1.3 (Departure Based On Inadequacy of Criminal History Category (Policy Statement)). A sentence resulting from a conviction is counted in the criminal history category score where a conviction is set aside or a defendant is pardoned for reasons unrelated to innocence or errors of law, e.g., in order to restore civil rights or to remove the stigma associated with a criminal conviction.  Id. § 4A1.2, application note 10 (emphasis supplied). [L]ook[ing] to the language and design of the state statute, as well as its purpose, we have concluded that an adjudication under the New York youthful offender statute does not result in an `expunged' conviction for purposes of the Guidelines. Matthews, 205 F.3d at 546. Rejecting the expungement theory advanced by the defendant in Matthews, we there concluded that the youthful offender adjudication was properly included in computing the criminal history category. Id. at 548-49. Informing our conclusion, in part, was the fact that New York law allows the use of the conviction and youthful offender adjudication for certain purposes. Id. at 547 ([I]t is clear that the New York legislature knew how to provide for a complete `expungement,' but it did not do so with respect to the youthful offender statute.). In United States v. Driskell, 277 F.3d 150 (2d Cir.2002), we directly confronted the question of when a prior conviction later vacated and replaced by a youthful offender adjudication under New York law may be considered in the criminal history category computation. The prior conviction in that case was one for Attempted Murder in the Second Degree committed by a defendant 17 years of age. A youthful offender adjudication followed the conviction. In holding that the youthful offender adjudication was properly considered, we instructed that [d]uring its consideration, the district court should examine the nature of this prior proceeding, the sentence received and actually served, and where the defendant was incarcerated. Id. at 151. To resolve the issue of convict[ion] as a adult, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(d), the Driskell Court believ[ed] the better course is for a district court to examine the substance of the prior conviction at issue; to `focus on the nature of the proceedings, the sentence received, and the actual time served.' Driskell, 277 F.3d at 157 (quoting United States v. Pinion, 4 F.3d 941, 944 (11th Cir.1993)). It therefore can be said that the determination of whether a youthful offender adjudication can be classified as an adult conviction is a function of many variables, no single one of which is dispositive. United States v. Jackson, 504 F.3d 250, 253 (2d Cir.2007).