Opinion ID: 4535792
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Predetermined Sentence

Text: Mr. Brown claims the district court inappropriately determined it would impose a lengthy sentence prior to considering the information provided at sentencing. Mr. Brown bases this argument on two statements the district court made at the change of plea hearing. First, the district court stated, “It is explained here very briefly by [Mr. Brown’s attorney,] Mr. Fleener[,] the sentencing range is huge, but, nevertheless, it is serious, very serious – from 15 years, that is 180 months, to 60 years if concurrent, at the same time, 11 sentences are imposed.[4] Do you understand that?” ROA, Vol. III at 19. Second, the district court stated, “Now, some words about supervised release. We are looking ahead a long way ahead for you and a period of supervised release will be imposed.” ROA, Vol. III at 22. These statements do not indicate that the district court prejudged Mr. Brown’s sentence and planned to impose a term of 30 years’ imprisonment on each count to run consecutively. Rather, these statements are consistent with the requirement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1) that the district court inform the defendant of the penalties he faces before accepting the defendant’s guilty plea. The district court correctly informed Mr. Brown that, if he pleaded guilty, he would be subject to a mandatory minimum of 15 years’ imprisonment on each count, and a statutory maximum of 30 years’ imprisonment on each count. The district court also correctly informed Mr. Brown that “there is a minimum mandatory period of supervision of five years.” ROA, Vol. III at 21 (emphasis added). Even if Mr. Brown received the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, Mr. Brown faced at least 15 years’ imprisonment followed by at least 5 years’ supervised release. Thus, it was accurate for the district court to state that a period of supervised release was “a long way ahead” of Mr. Brown. But nothing in the district court’s statements at the change of 4 The district court appears to have misspoken. Mr. Brown could serve as few as 15 years if his sentences were run concurrently, or as much as 60 years if his sentences were run consecutively. As the district court later stated, Mr. Brown faced a mandatory minimum of 15 years’ imprisonment and a statutory maximum of 30 years’ imprisonment on each count. 12 plea hearing indicate the court had already determined the length of Mr. Brown’s sentence.