Opinion ID: 6506
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Multiple Punishments Prohibited?

Text: 16 The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no one shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. 12 The Supreme Court has left no doubt that the clause protects defendants from both multiple prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense. 13 Witte argues that the government's present attempt to punish him for the cocaine offense violates double jeopardy's multiple punishments prong: he has already been punished for the cocaine offense charged in the subject indictment. 17 At the outset, we note the importance of distinguishing double jeopardy's prohibition of multiple prosecutions from its protection against impermissible multiple punishments. Although multiple prosecutions, i.e., more than one prosecution by the same sovereign for the same offense, always violate double jeopardy, 14 multiple punishments for the same offense may or may not violate double jeopardy. That is because Congress (or a state legislature) determines the scope of the constitutional protection in the multiple punishments context. If the legislature intended to impose multiple punishments for the same offense, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution. 15 The purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause in the multiple punishments context is to ensure that the punishment assessed does not exceed that authorized by the legislature (either the length of the sentence or the number of times that the sentence is imposed). 16 18 For purposes of double jeopardy, the drugs involved in the same offense--conspiring and attempting to import cocaine--were included in relevant conduct to sentence Witte for the marijuana offense and are the subject of the dismissed indictment. 17 The pertinent issues are (1) whether inclusion of the cocaine in relevant conduct at sentencing for the marijuana offense punished Witte for the cocaine offense, and if so, (2) whether Congress has authorized single or multiple punishment for the cocaine offense. This double jeopardy issue is res nova in this circuit, but the Second and Tenth Circuits have considered it. 18 Both have concluded that a defendant's acts included as relevant conduct in calculating punishment for one offense may not later form the basis of another indictment without violating double jeopardy. 19 19 In United States v. Koonce, 20 the defendant was convicted of distributing 443 grams of methamphetamine that he had mailed to his cohort. The district court sentenced him, however, for 7,869 grams. That quantity included 443 grams proved at trial, 963 grams found in his home, and 6,463 grams that Koonce was purported to have sold on other occasions. Inclusion of the additional grams in relevant conduct increased Koonce's offense level under the Guidelines from 32 (range: 188 to 235 months) to 34 (range: 235-293 months). Unlike Witte, Koonce received the maximum statutory sentence for all of the drugs (240 months). 21 20 The government then brought a second indictment charging Koonce with the 963 grams of methamphetamine found in his home. The Tenth Circuit employed a threestep analysis to determine whether double jeopardy was thereby violated: First, had Koonce been punished for the methamphetamine found at his residence? Second, if so, did Congress intend that an accused in Koonce's position receive cumulative--although not necessarily consecutive--sentences from two separate proceedings if both sentences punish the accused for exactly the same conduct? Finally, if the first two inquiries are answered affirmatively, does the second punishment constitute double punishment even though the sentence derived therefrom is specified to run concurrently with the first sentence? 21 In answering the initial inquiry, the court concluded that Koonce had been punished for the drugs found at his residence because his base offense level would have been lower had they not been included via the relevant conduct provisions of the Guidelines. The real offense approach of the Guidelines required that Koonce be punished for the acts included in relevant conduct; therefore, concluded the Koonce court, he was punished. 22 22 Second, the Koonce court found that the government had failed to point out any authority holding that Congress intended to punish a defendant a second time for conduct that [had] previously been aggregated into the base offense level for a related sentence in an earlier prosecution. 23 The court relied on (1) Sec. 3D1.2's grouping requirement, which mandates that a defendant's base offense level be determined by aggregating drug quantities from multiple counts in a single proceeding, and (2) the Sentencing Commission's announced goal of preventing prosecutorial charge manipulation, 24 to determine that Congress intended only one punishment rather than multiple punishments. The purpose of grouping is to ensure that an accused receives the same sentence that he would have received had he been charged and convicted of one narcotics count based on the same totality of facts. Recognizing that Koonce had received the statutory maximum sentence possible for the total quantity of drugs, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Congress could not have intended a larger punishment if a defendant were prosecuted in two proceedings. 23 Third, the Koonce court concluded that even if the defendant's second sentence were specified to run totally concurrent with the first, a second sentence would violate double jeopardy. The court relied on Ball v. United States. 25 Ball, a previously convicted felon, was convicted in one proceeding for (1) the receipt of a firearm and (2) the possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit remanded with instructions to modify the sentences to make them concurrent. The Supreme Court concluded that, as both offenses were established by the same criminal act, Congress had not intended to subject Ball to two convictions. Thus one of the convictions, as well as its concurrent sentence, [was] unauthorized punishment for a separate offense. 26 In Koonce, the Tenth Circuit relied upon these statements to posit that a concurrent sentence can be punishment. 27 As the Tenth Circuit had already decided that Congress had authorized only one punishment for that criminal act, the court concluded that this second punishment violated double jeopardy. 24 In United States v. McCormick, 28 the Second Circuit adopted Koonce's analytical framework. It affirmed the dismissal of bank fraud charges for acts that were used in a prior case as relevant conduct to compute the defendant's base offense level. McCormick was charged with bank fraud in Connecticut that resulted in a $75,000 loss. Subsequent to that indictment, McCormick was charged for bank fraud in Vermont that allegedly resulted in a $4 million loss. He was then convicted on the Connecticut bank fraud charge. At sentencing for the Connecticut conviction, the loss was calculated to be in the $2.5-5 million range, a sum that obviously included the Vermont loss. McCormick's motion to dismiss the Vermont bank fraud charges on double jeopardy grounds was granted. 25 The Second Circuit determined that inclusion of the Vermont amount in relevant conduct amounted to punishment for the Vermont fraud in the Connecticut proceedings, and that a second punishment for the Vermont loss would violate double jeopardy: The Sentencing Guidelines' grouping provision requires that defendants in fraud cases, like drug offenders, be assessed a single punishment for a set of similar acts. 29 The Guidelines achieve consistency in sentencing for fraud cases by grouping all of the relevant conduct and applying a single offense level to the whole course of conduct. 30 The Second Circuit concluded that Congress apparently did not intend to allow a defendant to be prosecuted for conduct already used to increase his or her offense level. Being skeptical of the way that the Tenth and Second Circuits reached those results, we now examine the double jeopardy question independently. 26
27 First, the government contends that inclusion of the cocaine in relevant conduct to calculate the defendant's base offense level is legally no different than enhancing his sentence by increasing a base offense level to a higher level under the Guidelines because of prior criminal activity. As increasing a base offense level by use of prior crimes is not punishment for prior crimes, argues the government, neither is using prior crimes to calculate a base offense level punishment for those prior crimes. Thus, concludes the government, Witte has not been punished for the cocaine offense. Witte counters that although enhancement of a sentence may not be punishment, counting the cocaine to determine his base offense level, with a corresponding 287-month increase in the maximum possible length of his sentence, is punishment. 28 It is well-settled that using prior crimes to enhance a sentence does not impinge on double jeopardy, because defendants are not punished for crimes so considered. 31 Pre-Guidelines, uncharged criminal conduct could be considered at sentencing as aggravating circumstances and could still form the basis of a later indictment, conviction, and sentence without violating double jeopardy. 32 The real offense approach to relevant conduct, however, may well lead to the conclusion that Witte was punished for the cocaine offense. 29 Stepping back from the somewhat artificial distinction between enhancement and calculation of a base offense level, we examine whether, pre-Guidelines, the prosecution and punishment of Witte for the cocaine offense would have been foreclosed because Witte's cocaine activities were considered in imposing sentence for the marijuana offense. Williams v. Oklahoma 33 indicates that the answer is no. As the Supreme Court noted in Williams, the sentencing court is authorized, if not required, to consider all of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances involved in the crime. 34 30 And in view of the obvious fact that, under the law of Oklahoma, kidnaping is a separate crime, entirely distinct from the crime of murder, the court's consideration of the murder as a circumstance involved in the kidnaping crime cannot be said to have resulted in punishing petitioner a second time for the same offense, nor to have denied to him due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 35 31 In Witte's case, the sentencing court is required by the Guideline's relevant conduct rules to consider the circumstances surrounding the particular offense of conviction. We find it clear that, like the crimes of kidnap and murder of the kidnap victim in Williams, the marijuana charge to which Witte pleaded guilty and was sentenced is an offense separate and distinct from the cocaine offense. 36 If, in Williams, consideration of the conduct constituting the separate offense of murder to increase the severity of the sentence for kidnaping was not punishment for the conduct so considered, then the use of relevant conduct to increase the punishment of a charged offense does not punish the offender for the relevant conduct. Of course, there is double use of single acts, but Williams apparently permits this. Williams was given a life sentence for murder and then the same murder was used to step up his punishment for kidnaping to death. 32 The only ostensible missing link in this analysis lies in the answer to the question whether, when Williams was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, the sentencing court considered the kidnaping of the murder victim. Although not clear from the text of Williams, we may fairly assume that the uncharged kidnaping was considered when Williams was sentenced for murder. After all, the sentencing court [was] authorized, if not required, to consider all of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances involved in the crime. 37 If so, then Williams is this case--pre-Guidelines. 33 The fact that Witte's double jeopardy challenge arises post-Guidelines does not change the analysis of the punishment issue presented in Williams. Before adoption of the Guidelines, judges exercised their sound discretion in determining the appropriate level of punishment within established statutory ranges of imprisonment. Post-Guidelines, judges are still required to determine a sentence within an established statutory range. The Guidelines simply provide a formulae for what used to be left to trial court discretion. To improve consistency in sentencing, the Guidelines attempt to accommodate multiple uses of conduct. Specifically, the Guidelines require that when, in cases such as Witte's, the sentencing court has considered the marijuana conviction in determining the offense level for the cocaine offense, the court must impose concurrent sentences. 38 34 Even if we assume arguendo that Williams does not absolutely dispose of this threshold punishment question, we would not end our analysis at this juncture. Rather, we accept for purposes of our analysis that Witte has been punished by inclusion of the cocaine activities in relevant conduct and proceed to consider whether a second punishment is nonetheless permitted by Congress. 35
36 We therefore turn to the Guidelines to determine the appropriate punishment-- single or multiple--to be assessed. 39 The Tenth Circuit's observation that grouping rules under the Guidelines prevents double counting and thus count manipulation is accurate. If Witte had been convicted in one proceeding of both the cocaine and marijuana offenses, grouping of counts--aggregation of the drug quantities--would result in a Guideline range of 292-365 months. The high end of the range serves as a cap to the length of the sentence (punishment) that Witte can receive for both offenses. 40 But the question here is whether Congress intended Witte to be subject to multiple punishments (a second punishment) for the cocaine--that had already been included in relevant conduct for a related sentence--as long as the aggregate length of his sentences did not exceed the lesser of the cap provided by the range or the statutory maximum sentence. 37 The Tenth Circuit found no authority in the Guidelines that Congress intended to punish a defendant a second time for conduct that has previously been aggregated into the base offense level for a related sentence in an earlier prosecution. 41 But that court did not have the benefit of the present Sec. 5G1.3(b) of the Guidelines, which Witte concedes in his motion to dismiss would require imposition of concurrent sentences if he were tried and convicted of the cocaine offense. Section 5G1.3 provides in pertinent part: 38 Imposition of a Sentence on a Defendant Subject to an Undischarged Term of Imprisonment 39 (b) If ... the undischarged term of imprisonment resulted from offense(s) that have been fully taken into account in the determination of the offense level for the instant offense, the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run concurrently to the undischarged term of imprisonment. 42 40 The commentary to Sec. 5G1.3(b), application note 2, reflects that 41 Subsection (b) ... addresses cases in which the conduct resulting in the undischarged term of imprisonment has been fully taken into account under Sec. 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) in determining the offense level for the instant offense. This can occur, for example where a defendant is prosecuted in both federal and state court, or in two or more federal jurisdictions, 43 for the same criminal conduct or for different criminal transactions that were part of the same course of conduct. 44 42 The commentary clearly permits a defendant to be prosecuted--and sentenced--in more than one federal proceeding for different criminal offenses that were part of the same course of conduct. 45 More importantly, a defendant's base offense level for each offense of conviction--unless the Guidelines expressly provide otherwise--must be determined on the basis of all relevant conduct. 46 The principle that all relevant conduct be considered in determining a defendant's base offense level is neither optional nor hortatory; it is mandatory. 43 Read in pari materia, Sec. 5G1.3(b) clearly provides that the government may convict a defendant of one offense and punish him for all relevant conduct; then indict and convict him for a different offense that was part of the same course of conduct as the first offense--and sentence him again for all relevant conduct. To repeat, this proposition merely reflects Congress's specific intent that all relevant conduct be considered in determining a defendant's sentence. Consequently, we find no basis for distinguishing the situation described by Sec. 5G1.3(b) from the one before us today. 44 Like it or not, we are satisfied that Sec. 5G1.3 reflects Congress's intent to prevent punishment from being larger if the government chooses to proceed with two different proceedings--and that Congress accomplishes this intent--not by foreclosing a second prosecution but by directing that the length of the resulting term of imprisonment be no greater than that which would have resulted from prosecution and conviction on both counts in a single proceeding. Section 5G1.3(b), therefore, accomplishes in successive proceedings what grouping of counts pursuant to Sec. 3D1.2 accomplishes in a single proceeding. Thus Sec. 5G1.3(b) is authority ... that Congress intended to punish a defendant a second time for conduct that has previously been aggregated into the base offense level for a related sentence in an earlier prosecution, authority that the Tenth Circuit--without the benefit of Sec. 5G1.3(b) in its present form--found lacking when it analyzed Koonce's double jeopardy challenge. 47 45 The Second Circuit had the benefit of Sec. 5G1.3(b) but distinguished the situation in McCormick from that described in Sec. 5G1.3(b). That distinction concerns when the defendant will be punished for both offenses in a single sentencing proceeding, i.e., whether the defendant will be punished for both offenses at sentencing for the first offense (McCormick's situation) or at sentencing for the second offense (the Second Circuit's view of Sec. 5G1.3(b)). But in our view, under Sec. 5G1.3(b) and relevant conduct principles, the defendant is punished for both offenses both at sentencing for the first offense and at sentencing for the second offense. 46 With all due respect, we believe that the Second Circuit's analysis of Sec. 5G1.3(b) suffers from two errors: first, it ignores--under Sec. 5G1.3(b)--the application of relevant conduct principles to sentencing for the first offense; second, it does not consider McCormick's situation at the relevant stage addressed by Sec. 5G1.3(b), i.e., at the sentencing stage for purposes of the instant offense. 48 The McCormick court did not consider that, at sentencing for the second offense, McCormick could be punished again for all relevant conduct. Section 5G1.3(b) assumes that a defendant has been prosecuted and convicted for the instant offense--an offense that was part of the same course of conduct as an offense for which there is already a conviction and for which an appropriate Guidelines sentence has been assessed (hence the application of relevant conduct at the first sentencing proceeding)--and that it has proceeded to the sentencing stage. 47 Nevertheless, the Second Circuit recognized that in a case governed by subsection (b), the Sentencing Commission would require concurrent sentencing to avoid multiple punishments. 49 Thus, two sentences, though concurrent, have been authorized by the legislature in this situation, and thus would not violate double jeopardy. The significance of this analysis should be obvious: it is not the subsequent prosecution that is affected, but the subsequent sentence that may be pronounced and the manner in which such sentence may be imposed, assuming that the permitted subsequent prosecution produces a conviction.