Opinion ID: 772670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Effect of Dismissal of the 1999 State Conviction

Text: 9 As noted in the Sentencing Guidelines, consideration of a defendant's criminal history is directly relevant to the four purposes of sentencing set forth by statute: (1) to reflect the seriousness of the offense... and to provide just punishment for the offense; (2) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (3) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (4) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner. U.S.S.G. ch. 4, pt. A, introductory cmt.; 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant's criminal history category is calculated with reference to the number and length of the defendant's prior sentence[s], a term defined to include any sentence previously imposed upon adjudication of guilt, whether by guilty plea, trial, or plea of nolo contendere, for conduct not part of the instant offense. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a). 10 However, not every prior sentence is properly included when calculating a defendant's criminal history category under the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Carter, 203 F.3d 187, 192 (2d Cir. 2000). Rather, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 sets forth a variety of different types of prior sentences that are not to be included, and specifically, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(j) provides that sentences for expunged convictions are not to be counted. While the Sentencing Guidelines do not explicitly define what constitutes an expunged conviction, we have made clear that a prior state conviction should not be counted under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 when the statute under which that conviction has been dismissed indicates legislative intent wholly to eliminate any trace of the past proceeding... [and] wholly to erase [the defendant's] prior conviction from [the state's] criminal records. United States v. Beaulieau, 959 F.2d 375, 381 (2d Cir. 1992) (prior juvenile conviction that had been ordered sealed and stricken from public records, pursuant to Vermont statute, could not be counted under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2). Moreover, the application notes to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 distinguish between sentences resulting from convictions that (A) have been reversed or vacated because of errors of law or because of subsequently discovered evidence exonerating the defendant, or (B) have been ruled constitutionally invalid in a prior case, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, Application Note 6, which are notto be counted, and sentences resulting from convictions [that have been] set aside or for which the defendant [has been] pardoned for reasons unrelated to innocence or errors of law, e.g., in order to restore civil rights or to remove the stigma associated with a criminal conviction, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, Application Note 10, which are to be counted. See United States v. Matthews, 205 F.3d 544, 546 (2d Cir. 2000). 11 These passages in the Sentencing Guidelines make clear that [w]hen a state court vacates a defendant's prior state conviction, in certain circumstances, the sentence resulting from that conviction may not influence the defendant's criminal history score under the Guidelines. United States v. Guthrie, 931 F.2d 564, 572 (9th Cir. 1991). As the Ninth Circuit has discussed, this proposition makes perfect sense: 12 The state court has plenary authority to vacate state convictions. Once the court vacates a conviction, that conviction expires in the eyes of the State. It would therefore be odd, and we believe contrary to the Guidelines, for a federal court to treat as valid a state conviction that no longer exists, even though the conviction is being considered for the limited purposes of federal sentencing.... [T]he [federal] court may believe the state court's decision overturning the prior conviction is incorrect, but that is beside the point, for the Guidelines are concerned only with the state court's final determination, not with the soundness of its reasoning. 13 Id. In light of the dismissal of his 1999 state conviction, therefore, Cox is entitled to a review of his federal sentence, which was enhanced on account of a prior conviction that now has been dismissed. See United States v. Doe, 239 F.3d 473, 475 (2d Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Guthrie, 931 F.2d at 572-73. That review must account for the precise authority under New Jersey law in support of that dismissal, for only if Cox's 1999 state conviction was truly expunged, or was dismissed on account of constitutional invalidity, innocence, or errors of law, would Cox's sentence reflect an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines. See Matthews, 205 F.3d at 546; Beaulieau, 959 F.2d at 380-81; Guthrie, 931 F.2d at 572. 14 As indicated above, the government urges us not to consider Cox's claims on direct appeal, but instead to require him to assert those claims in a § 2255 petition. Especially coming from the government, this argument strikes a somewhat dissonant chord, since the government often reminds us that in order to preserve the finality of criminal sentences and effect the efficient allocation of judicial resources, petitioners must show a complete miscarriage of justice in order to raise and have considered, on § 2255 review, nonconstitutional and nonjurisdictional sentencing issues that were not raised on direct appeal. Graziano v. United States, 83 F.3d 587, 590 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam); see, e.g., Werber v. United States, 149 F.3d 172, 177 n.4 (2d Cir. 1998). Since Cox has successfully avoided the prospect of procedural bar by raising his sentencing claim on direct appeal, it would be inappropriate now to hold that we shall not consider that claim, though straightforward and rather easily resolved upon additional fact-finding, until he reasserts that identical claim yet again in a § 2255 petition. Such a disposition not only would have the potential to cause considerable confusion for defendants-who might infer from that conclusion, against the grain of much habeas and § 2255 jurisprudence, a preference to have sentencing claims raised and addressed in postconviction proceedings, rather than on direct appeal-but in addition, given the restrictions on the filing of second or successive habeas and § 2255 petitions placed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, might effectively force the appellant to use up his only [§ 2255] petition to raise a straightforward claim that easily may be resolved upon further, but rather limited, fact-finding. United States v. Leone, 215 F.3d 253, 257 (2d Cir. 2000) (exercising discretion to remand to district court for further fact-finding in order to address defendant's ineffective assistance claim); cf. Adams v. United States, 155 F.3d 582, 583 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (AEDPA restrictions on second or successive petitions bring[] into play new considerations mandating changes to prior district court practice of construing prisoners' motions as § 2255 petitions, which may result [under AEDPA] in a disastrous deprivation of a future opportunity to have a well-justified grievance adjudicated). 15 In any event, the government conceded at oral argument that we may remand this case to the District Court in order to supplement the record and, if necessary, to recalculate Cox's sentence. Under the circumstances presented here, we exercise our discretion to remand to the District Court for it to ascertain the precise basis for the dismissal of Cox's 1999 state conviction and, if those facts render it necessary, for recalculation of his criminal history and resentencing in light of that dismissal. Cf. United States v. Rhodes, 106 F.3d 429, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (remanding to district court for possible resentencing, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2106, convictions for possession of narcotics with intent to distribute following reversal by Supreme Court of accompanying conviction for using firearm during drug-trafficking offense); United States v. Giraldo, 80 F.3d 667, 677 (2d Cir. 1996) (reversing conviction for use of a firearm and remanding for resentencing on remaining convictions in light of that reversal), abrogated on other grounds by Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998). Should it conclude that Cox's 1999 state conviction should not be counted under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, the District Court nevertheless may consider whether that conviction should serve as the basis for an upward departure from the applicable guideline range under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3-a matter on which we express no view in this opinion. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(j) (expunged convictions may be considered under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3).