Opinion ID: 785710
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentence Enhancement for Aggravated Battery

Text: 13 Next, Maxwell challenges the district court's sentencing enhancements pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). 5 First, Maxwell contends that the district court erred when it enhanced his sentence based on an aggravated-battery conviction because this prior offense was added to the Presentence Investigation Report only seven days before sentencing. Specifically, Maxwell contends he did not have the opportunity to challenge the alleged conviction because it was not pled in the indictment or mentioned in the presentence report in a timely manner. We disagree. 14 Maxwell was charged in a one-count indictment alleging a violation of § 922(g)(1). The indictment set forth three of Maxwell's previous convictions, including possession of a controlled substance, aggravated assault, and burglary. The United States Probation Office prepared its first Presentence Investigation Report (Report I) on April 29, 2003. Under Report I, Maxwell did not qualify for a sentence enhancement under § 924(e). 6 Under § 924(a)(2), Maxwell's maximum term of imprisonment was ten years. The government filed its response to Report I indicating it had no objections. 15 On June 12, 2003, seven days before Maxwell's June 19 sentencing hearing, the United States Probation Office revised Report I in another report (Report II) and immediately made it available to Maxwell's trial counsel. Report II added a 1993 aggravated-battery conviction from a county in Illinois. With the added conviction, the term of imprisonment increased from a maximum of ten years to a minimum of fifteen years up to a maximum term of life. The added conviction enhanced Maxwell's sentence under § 924(e) to one greater than the statutory maximum set under § 924(a)(2). 16 Maxwell argues that he can only be sentenced up to a maximum of ten years' imprisonment based upon two prior felonies rather than the enhanced penalty prescribed by § 924(e)(1) for three prior felonies. At sentencing, Maxwell's counsel protested that he did not have a chance to lodge a written objection to the inclusion of the 1993 aggravated-battery conviction. His counsel contended the government failed to disclose the third conviction under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 7 In response, the government explained that it disclosed the conviction the same day it was discovered. The district court concluded that there was no indication the government intentionally concealed the aggravated-battery conviction and overruled Maxwell's objection. Based on Maxwell's conviction for two aggravated-battery charges and one burglary charge, the district court applied a Chapter Four enhancement under § 924(e)(1). 17 Our Court reviews a trial court's evidentiary rulings under an abuse of discretion standard. Troknya v. Cleveland Chiropractic Clinic, 280 F.3d 1200, 1205 (8th Cir.2002). We review the trial court's factual findings in support of a sentencing enhancement for clear error and its application of the sentencing guidelines to the facts de novo. United States v. Campbell, 270 F.3d 702, 706-07 (8th Cir.2001). 18 We are not persuaded that the seven-day notice caused unfair surprise and prevented Maxwell from adequately addressing the validity of the added conviction. Maxwell was put on notice of the added conviction immediately after the government discovered it. Most importantly, Maxwell's counsel did not request a continuance after learning of the additional conviction. We therefore hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the aggravated-battery conviction.