Opinion ID: 70897
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellant Andrews

Text: In 1988, Andrews pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 844(a), and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced Andrews to imprisonment of sixty-three months and five years of supervised release. As one of the conditions of his supervised release, Andrews could not commit another federal, state, or local crime. In October 1992, Andrews began his term of supervised release. Within one year, in September 1993, Andrews was arrested in Florida for violations of state law which included conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On October 19, 1993, Andrews pleaded guilty to these charges; however, he subsequently moved to set aside his plea. He argued that he had not been advised that the offense to which he pleaded guilty carried a fifteen-year mandatory minimum prison sentence and that the state court had improperly promised that his state sentence would run concurrently to any federal sentence he received for violating the terms of his supervised release. The state court denied Andrew's motion. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Meanwhile, on October 29, 1993, proceedings had begun in federal court to revoke Andrews' supervised release. At his final revocation hearing, Andrews refused to admit he had committed a violation of the terms of his supervised release. He argued that the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea was pending before a state appellate court. The district court granted the government's motion for a continuance of the revocation hearing.3 By the time the proceedings resumed, Andrews' conviction had been affirmed on appeal. He continued to argue, however, that his guilty plea was invalid for the same reasons he pressed before the state court. In support of its contention that Andrews violated the terms of his supervised release, the government offered only Andrews' state judgment of conviction. Andrews did not challenge the fact of his conviction or the admission of the judgment into evidence. 4 Instead, he offered a copy of his plea agreement into evidence. Andrews argued that the plea agreement on its face proved that his 5 state conviction was based upon an invalid guilty plea. The district court rejected these contentions and found that Andrews had violated the terms of his supervised release. Andrews was 3 The court granted the continuance in order to provide the government the opportunity to gather enough evidence to prove the supervised release violation without having to rely exclusively on the state conviction. At the postponed sentencing hearing, however, the government resorted to exclusive reliance on the conviction. 4 The plea agreement provided, in relevant part: I will enter a plea of guilty to the charge of Conspiracy to Traffick [sic] in Cocaine for a maximum sentence not to exceed fifteen (15) years in the custody of the Department of Corrections and a fine not to exceed $250,000.00. Any sentence I receive in the State System will run concurrently with any sentence I might receive from the Federal Court for my Violation of Probation. 5 Andrews contends that the state failed to inform him of the mandatory minimum sentence for the crime to which he pleaded guilty and improperly represented that his federal sentence would be concurrent to his state sentence. sentenced to five years of imprisonment.6 Before imposing this sentence, the court noted that Andrews had committed the violation within one year of beginning supervised release and that, based on this history, that seems to be a course of conduct he periodically follows. The term of imprisonment imposed on Andrews exceeds the range of twenty-four to thirty months set forth in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a).