Opinion ID: 555115
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Criminal History Category Determination

Text: 3 Stephenson also argues that the district court unfairly and improperly applied the Sentencing Guidelines in determining that his criminal record placed him for sentencing purposes in Criminal History Category II under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Stephenson contends that the court's assignment of one criminal history point pursuant to Sec. 4A1.2(a)(3) of the Guidelines for the imposition of a prior sentence of less than sixty days imprisonment and two points pursuant to Sec. 4A1.1(d) for committing the instant offense while under a sentence of probation resulted in the imposition of a grossly disproportionate sentence that violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Stephenson suggests that the district court's determination was the product of a double-counting that unfairly resulted in an additional five years of imprisonment. He asks that we order the district court to resentence him, this time as a Category I offender. 4 We find no error in the district court's placement of Stephenson in Criminal History Category II for sentencing purposes. Guidelines Section 4A1.1 provides, in subsections (a) and (b), that three points should be added for each prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month and two points for each prior sentence of imprisonment of at least sixty days not counted in (a). Of greater relevance here is the provision in Sec. 4A1.1(c) that 1 point [should be added] for each prior sentence not included in (a) or (b), up to a total of 4 points. Nowhere in the Guidelines or the Commentary thereto is a sentence of probation excepted from the provisions of Sec. 4A1.1(c). The addition of one point thereunder was proper. The Guidelines provide in Sec. 4A1.1(d) that the sentencing court should [a]dd 2 points if the defendant committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence, including probation ... Certainly, it was not error for the district court to assign two points pursuant to this provision. 5 The one point added under subsection (c) merely addressed prior criminal conduct generally. The two points added under subsection (d) addressed the additional consideration of the recency of the prior criminal activity. Clearly, these provisions involve two distinct considerations and do not result in an improper or unconstitutional double-counting.