Opinion ID: 773284
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Apprendi Analysis

Text: 16 This case requires us to add to our burgeoning case law interpreting the Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). Apprendi addressed the question, in the context of a state prosecution, whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a factual determination authorizing an increase in the maximum prison sentence for an offense from 10 years to 20 years be made by a jury on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi, 120 S. Ct. at 2351. The Supreme Court answered this constitutional question in the affirmative. 17 We have held that Apprendi teaches several principal lessons: first, that [t]he offense charged in an indictment must be stated with sufficient 'certainty and precision' so 'that there can be no doubt as to the judgment which should be given if the defendant is convicted; second, that courts must count any 'fact' that increases the 'penalty beyond the prescribed statutory maximum' as an element of the offense 'except for one important exception,' i.e., 'the fact of a prior conviction;' and third, that it 'is unconstitutional for a legislature' to treat 'facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed' as mere sentencing factors, rather than facts to be established as elements of the offense. United States v. Ramirez, 242 F.3d. 348, 350-51 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). 18 Apprendi has had significant repercussions for drug prosecutions under 21 U.S.C. §841(a) and sentencing under §841(b), which prescribes staggered maximum and mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses dependent upon, inter alia, drug quantity. Already, we have held, pursuant to Apprendi, that the government must name in the indictment the quantity of drugs for which it seeks to holdthe defendant responsible under 21 U.S.C. §841(a), and that the determination of drug quantity under §841(b) must, when it subjects the defendant to an enhanced sentence, be considered an element of the offense rather than a sentencing factor. See Ramirez, 242 F.3d at 351; United States v. Flowal, 234 F.3d 932, 938 (6th Cir. 2000). In Flowal, we explained that each penalty provision of §841(b) constitutes a different crime with different elements, including drug weight, which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt when sentencing a defendant in excess of the default statutory maximum set out in §841(b)(1)(C) for all drugs except marijuana, or in §841(b)(1)(D) for marijuana. Our sister circuits have uniformly agreed with us. See United States v. Nance, 236 F.3d 820, 824 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Rogers, 228 F.3d 1318, 1326-28 (11th Cir. 2000); United States v. Doggett, 230 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Angle, 230 F.3d 113 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Nordby, 225 F.3d 1053, 1056 (9th Cir. 2000);United States v. Rebmann, 226 F.3d 521, 524 (6th Cir. 2000); United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 931 (8th Cir. 2000)). Failure to comply with these strictures is, we have held, a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and will require resentencing. See Ramirez, 242 F.3d at 351. 19 Recently, we noted that an Apprendi violation may occur when a defendant pleads guilty to a drug offense as well as when he chooses to take his case to trial. See United States v. Harper, 246 F.3d 520, 530-31 (6th Cir. 2001);cf. United States v. Rebmann, 226 F.3d 521, 524-25 (6th Cir. 2000) (vacating defendant's sentence for violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a) imposed pursuant to guilty plea because district court's finding that distribution of drugs caused death or serious bodily injury resulted in unconstitutional sentence enhancement under Apprendi). Today we confirm that principle. Our rationale is simple: the defendant who pleads guilty to an unspecified amount of drugs and is then sentenced under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard may just as easily be subjected to an enhanced sentence in excess of the default statutory maximum as the defendant who takes his case to trial and is then sentenced by the district court under the same preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. This holding follows inexorably from Flowal, Ramirez, and Harper, and its outcome is dictated by Apprendi. 20 The government argues that Apprendi does not apply in this case because Strayhorn's sentence of 120 months does not exceed the statutory maximum under §841(b)(1)(D), the default maximum for marijuana offenses when the defendant has a prior felony conviction. 1 In Flowal, the defendant was indicted for possession of 5.2 kilograms of cocaine, in violation of §§841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). He pleaded not guilty and was convicted by a jury for the substantive offense. The district court determined the amount of drugs for sentencing purposes by a preponderance standard. The court concluded that Flowalwas responsible for 5.008 kilograms of cocaine and, pursuant to §841(b)(1)(A), sentenced Flowal to life in prison, which was a mandatory minimum sentence given Flowal's two prior felony drug convictions. On appeal, we held that the district court erred in determining the amount of drugs by a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. We determined that, consistent with Apprendi, the drug amount should have been determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt because a finding as to the weight of the drugs determined the range of penalties that would apply to Flowal.Flowal, 234 F.3d at 936. Significant to this case, we rejected the argument that the district court did not err because the penalty imposed - life imprisonment - did not exceed the prescribed statutory maximum sentence for either §841(b)(1)(A) or the lesser penalty provision, §841(b)(1)(B). We noted that the life sentence was mandatory under §841(b)(1)(A) but was the statutory maximum under §841(b)(1)(B) and that the district court's determination of the drug quantity took away any discretion in terms of imposing a shorter sentence. Id. at 937. Because [t]he judge's determination effectively limited the range of applicable penalties and deprived Flowal of the opportunity to receive less than life imprisonment without the possibility of release, id., we vacated the defendant's sentence and remanded to the district court. 21 In Flowal, the district court's life sentence was also in excess of the default statutory maximum, 30 years, under §841(b)(1)(C) for defendants with prior felony drug convictions. Thus, while similar, Flowal is arguably distinguishable from the present case. Ramirez, however, is not. Because of his prior felony conviction, Ramirez was subject to a maximum thirty-year sentence under §841(b)(1)(C) for conspiring to distribute and attempting to possess with the intent to distribute an unspecified amount of cocaine. After a jury trial, he was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment, the mandatory minimum under §841(b)(1)(A), based on a quantity of drugs determined by the district court under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. We applied the analysis in Apprendi to Ramirez's sentence and concluded that 'the assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed,' such as moving up the scale of mandatory minimum sentences, invokes the full range of constitutional protections required for 'elements of the crime.' Ramirez, 242 F.3d at 351. Vacating Ramirez's sentence, we held that [a]ggravating factors, other than a prior conviction, that increase the penalty from a nonmandatory minimum sentence to a mandatory minimum sentence, or from a lesser to a greater minimum sentence, are now elements of the crime to be charged and proved. Id. at 351-52. Were we to adopt the government's argument that Strayhorn's sentence is permissible because it is equivalent to the default statutory maximum, we would be forced to turn a blind eye to the reasoning in Flowal. We would also be compelled to overrule Ramirez because Strayhorn's sentence was clearly enhanced from a nonmandatory minimum sentence to a mandatory minimum sentence by facts neither charged nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This we cannot do. See Salmi v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir. 1985). 22 In the instant case, the district court's drug quantity finding increased the statutory sentence to which Strayhorn was exposed from a maximum term of ten years' imprisonment pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(D) to a mandatory minimumsentence of ten years' imprisonment under §841(b)(1)(B). Strayhorn never pleaded guilty to the elements of the offense under§841(b)(1)(B) nor were they charged or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, Strayhorn was effectively sentenced under a separate statutory offense with a higher penalty range than the default penalty provision under §841(b)(1)(D). It matters not, according to Ramirez, that the statutory maximum for §841(b)(1)(D) is equivalent to the statutory mandatory minimum for §841(b)(1)(B). 23 Under Ramirez, if the government seeks to convict and sentence Strayhorn under §841(b)(1)(B) for conspiracy to possess more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, it must indict him appropriately and then prove the elements of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the government may indict a defendant under the provision with the lowest statutory maximum sentence and then, as in this case, rely on relevant conduct findings to achieve what it otherwise might not if held to a higher burden of proof, namely a sentence under a separate offense's enhanced penalty provision. Of course, it is clearly permissible for judges to exercise discretion-taking into consideration various factors relating both to offense and offender-in imposing a judgment within the range prescribed by statute. Apprendi, 120 S. Ct. at 2358; see also United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 157 (1997) (holding that criminal conduct of which defendant is acquitted may be used as sentencing factor if proved by preponderance of the evidence). Thus, the government may still rely upon a district court's finding of relevant conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, see McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 91-92 (1986), but only insofar as it operates solely to limit the sentencing court's discretion in selecting a penalty within the range already available to it and does not alter[] the maximum penalty for the crime committed nor create[] a separate offense calling for a separate penalty, id. at 87-88. See also Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 397 (1995) (explaining that defendant is not punished under Double Jeopardy analysis for uncharged conduct when relevant conduct finding produces sentence within statutorily authorized punishment range) 2 . 24 Had the district court required Strayhorn's relevant conduct to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, Strayhorn maynot have been held responsible for over 100 kilograms of marijuana and the mandatory minimum under §841(b)(1)(B) would not have applied. Not only would his statutory sentencing range have been lesser, but he would not have been saddled with the increased social opprobrium that accompanies the higher degree of criminal culpability assigned to him.