Opinion ID: 2974632
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relatedness of Carson’s Ohio Convictions

Text: The district court’s conclusion that Carson’s Ohio drug convictions were not related was not clearly erroneous because Carson has not shown an “explicit indication that the trial court intended to consolidate the prior convictions.” Horn, 355 F.3d at 614. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, prior sentences that are related count as a single sentence. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). An application note in the Guidelines provides that “prior sentences are considered related if they resulted from offenses that . . . were consolidated for trial or sentencing.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, cmt. n.3. Carson maintains that, although there was no formal order of consolidation in the Ohio court, his cases were functionally consolidated. Although a formal consolidation order is not necessary for cases to be functionally consolidated for sentencing, United States v. Hazelwood, 398 F.3d 792, 797 (6th Cir. 2005), this court has consistently held that there is no functional consolidation “‘when offenses proceed to sentencing under separate docket numbers, cases are not factually related, and there was no order of consolidation,’” United States v. McAdams, 25 F.3d 370, 374 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Coleman, 964 F.2d 564, 567 (6th Cir. 1994). See also United States v. Cook, 174 Fed. Appx. 870, 872 (6th Cir. 2006) (unpublished); Hazelwood, 398 F.3d at 797-98; Horn, 355 F.3d at 614. There must be “some explicit indication that the trial court intended to consolidate the prior convictions.” Horn, 355 F.3d at 614. Carson relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (2001), to support his contention that the Ohio cases were consolidated for sentencing. In Buford, the Supreme Court held that the appropriate standard of review of the consolidation question is one of deference. 532 U.S. at 66. Carson maintains that the Supreme Court in Buford embraced the Seventh Circuit’s standard for functional consolidation—that convictions are functionally consolidated when “the convictions were factually or logically related, and sentencing was joint,” 532 U.S. at 61—and that this definition should apply in his case. However, the question before the Supreme Court in Buford was the applicable standard of review, not whether the Seventh Circuit’s definition of functional consolidation was correct. Furthermore, the law of this circuit regarding functional consolidation, while not the same, has significant elements in common with that of the Seventh Circuit, including questions of factual relatedness and whether there are indications in the record regarding the trial court’s intent to consolidate cases for sentencing.1 Carson argues that his Ohio drug convictions were factually related because throughout 1995 and 1996 he maintained a consistent practice of buying large amounts of heroin, selling some to support his own addiction, and using some himself. Because this practice was “part and parcel of [his] way of life,” Carson argues, the offenses are factually related. However, the mere fact that a drug dealer who is also an addict maintains a consistent practice of buying large amounts of drugs and selling some and using some does not render every conviction stemming from that activity factually related. Carson has shown nothing more than that he was a heroin addict who sold drugs to support his habit. Given that Carson’s convictions in Ohio stemmed from arrests for activities 1 Although Carson appears to be of the opinion that the Seventh Circuit’s definition of functional consolidation would lead to a more favorable result in his case, we note that the Seventh Circuit, post-Buford, has held that simultaneous disposition merely for the sake of administrative convenience is not consolidation, and that “in the absence of a formal order of consolidation, we will deem sentences functionally consolidated only where there is a showing on the record of the sentencing hearing that the sentencing judge considered the cases sufficiently related for consolidation and effectively entered one sentence for the multiple convictions.” United States v. Best, 250 F.3d 1084, 1095 (7th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). No. 05-4015 United States v. Carson Page 4 that occurred a year apart and were the result of investigations by different law enforcement agencies, Carson has not established that his Ohio convictions were factually related. See United States v. Mays, 100 Fed. Appx. 468, 469 (6th Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (holding that the defendant’s prior drug convictions were not factually related because the offenses occurred on three separate dates in two different counties). Carson also argues that his sentencing in the Ohio cases was joint because (1) the plea agreement treated the two cases as one for which the parties negotiated a single sentence; (2) Carson entered one guilty plea; (3) the record indicates that the state court judge joined the cases for sentencing with each plea entry setting sentencing in both cases at the same date and hour; and (4) Carson was sentenced at one hearing in accordance with the plea agreement. Carson has failed to establish that sentencing in Case 1 and Case 2 was joint and that his cases were consolidated for sentencing because he has not pointed to any explicit indication in the record showing that the trial judge intended to consolidate the cases for sentencing. The record reflects that there were two separate cases under two separate docket numbers, that Carson received specific sentences for each count in each case, that there was no consolidation order, and that the sentences were consecutive. Although the question of relatedness is a fact-specific inquiry, Hazelwood, 398 F.3d at 797, prior case law from this circuit supports the district court’s determination that Carson’s sentencing was not joint and that the Ohio convictions were not related for Guidelines purposes. It is simply not enough to show that prior cases were handled at the same time by the same judge in state court. For example, in Horn, this court rejected the defendant’s argument that his prior convictions were functionally consolidated under circumstances similar to those in the present case. Horn was arrested and charged at the same time for committing different robberies; he made an initial appearance for the different offenses at the same time; the different cases were set for trial on the same date; Horn entered a guilty plea to the different offenses on the same day; and the court sentenced Horn for both offenses on same day, with the sentences to run concurrently. 355 F.3d at 614; see also Cook, 174 Fed. Appx. at 872 (refusing to find functional consolidation where there was one sentencing hearing, a joint plea bargain, and the imposition of concurrent sentences). There is simply nothing in the record to distinguish Carson’s sentencing in the Ohio proceedings from prior cases in this circuit where this court has refused to find functional consolidation. Because Carson has failed to show an “explicit indication that the trial court intended to consolidate the prior convictions,” Horn, 355 F.3d at 614, his argument that his Ohio convictions were functionally consolidated fails. Carson maintains that the district court’s conclusion that Carson’s Ohio convictions were not related is not entitled to deference because the district court did not consider the specific facts of Carson’s case. This argument fails because the district court specifically noted that the Ohio cases proceeded under different docket numbers, that the arrests in each case stemmed from activity that occurred a year apart and were the result of different investigations, and that Carson entered separate guilty pleas to a number of different counts in two separate cases. The district court referred to prior case law of this circuit to support its conclusion that Carson’s prior convictions were not related, but this does not mean that the court failed to consider the specific facts of Carson’s case. Thus, the district court’s conclusion that Carson’s Ohio convictions were not related for Guidelines purposes is entitled to deference. Buford, 532 U.S. at 65-66. No. 05-4015 United States v. Carson Page 5