Opinion ID: 2743168
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Phillips’s Richardson and Rutledge Claims

Text: As previously noted, Phillips contends that the District Court erred by failing to give the jury a unanimity instruction on Phillips’s CCE charge, and that he was wrongly convicted of both conspiracy and CCE because conspiracy is a lesser included offense of CCE. In its brief, the government concedes that both of Phillips’ convictions for conspiracy and CCE cannot stand. See Rutledge, 517 U.S. at 303 (holding that convicting a defendant for both drug conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and CCE in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848 is plain error because § 846 is a lesser included offense of § 848). The government also concedes that the district court erred by failing to give the jury a unanimity instruction as to Phillips’s CCE charge.2 See Richardson, 526 U.S. at 818 (holding that, in order to convict someone of engaging in a CCE, the jury must be unanimous as to which specific violations of the federal drug laws comprise the “continuing series of violations” underlying the CCE charge). 2 The government does not concede, however, that Phillips is entitled to relief on his Richardson claim. Its position is that Phillips is unable to demonstrate that the District Court’s failure to give the unanimity instruction prejudiced him, as he is required to do on plain error review. See Olano, 507 U.S. at 734. 5 If Phillips prevails on his Richardson claim, the remedy would be to vacate Phillips’s CCE conviction; if he prevails on his Rutledge claim, the remedy would be to vacate either his conspiracy conviction or his CCE conviction. For this reason, and because Phillips will serve life sentences for other crimes regardless of this Court’s resolution of these issues, the government puts forth a proposal: It suggests that we simply dismiss the CCE conviction (Count II), as doing so will remedy both the Richardson and Rutledge problems with Phillips’s convictions. Appellee Brief 112-13. The government asserts that this proposal serves the interests of judicial economy and efficiency. We agree. Accord United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 316, 317 (7th Cir. 1999) (accepting a similar government proposal in similar circumstances). Thus, we will vacate Phillips’s CCE conviction on Count II and affirm his conspiracy conviction on Count I. Phillips has won a Pyrrhic victory.