Opinion ID: 765659
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: U.S.S.G. sec. 4A1.3: Upward Departure of Criminal History Category

Text: 21 Section 4A1.3 is a policy statement concerning the adequacy of the criminal history category. It states: 22 If reliable information indicates that the criminal history category does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendant's past criminal conduct or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes, the court may consider imposing a sentence departing from the otherwise applicable guideline range. Such information may include, but is not limited to, information concerning: 23 (a) prior sentence(s) not used in computing the criminal history category (e.g., sentences for foreign and tribal offenses); 24 (b) prior sentence(s) of substantially more than one year imposed as a result of independent crimes committed on different occasions; 25 (c) prior similar misconduct established by a civil adjudication or by a failure to comply with an administrative order; 26 (d) whether the defendant was pending trial or sentencing on another charge at the time of the instant offense; 27 (e) prior similar adult criminal conduct not resulting in a criminal conviction. 28 U.S.S.G. sec. 4A1.3 (emphasis added). 7 The district court raised Mr. Turchen's criminal history category from II to III by counting a prior adjudication of not guilty by reason of mental defect or disease. 8 The court decided to count that unconvicted criminal conduct under sec. 4A1.3(e) (and, in the alternative, under sec. 5K2.0) based on the reliable information that the presiding court held the defendant accountable by his placement at Mendota Mental Health Institution for an indeterminate time not to exceed 15 years conviction. R.22 at 7. Because this not guilty adjudication was not assessed criminal history points, the criminal history category did not adequately reflect the seriousness of Mr. Turchen's past criminal conduct. The district court relied on United States v. McKenley, 895 F.2d 184, 186-87 (4th Cir. 1990), which held that an acquittal by reason of insanity may be considered in assessing whether a defendant's criminal history category adequately reflects a defendant's past criminal conduct or his potential for future criminal behavior. The district court then concluded: 29 This past unconvicted conduct certainly indicates dangerousness, violence and depravity. There is nothing in the record to persuade this Court to the contrary. Only by taking such conduct into account can this Court fix a sentence which appropriately accommodates the goal of the Guidelines to protect society. 30 R.22 at 8. 31 Mr. Turchen concedes that the court properly could consider his prior adjudication of not guilty by reason of mental defect. See United States v. Carter, 111 F.3d 509, 514 (7th Cir. 1997) (noting that charges on which a defendant has been acquitted or for which charges have been dismissed can be considered under sec. 4A1.3 as long as the government's evidence is reliable); accord United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 154 (1997) (per curiam) ([W]e are convinced that a sentencing court may consider conduct of which a defendant has been acquitted.). Nor does he challenge the degree of departure. However, Mr. Turchen insists that the court should have considered his extensive treatment and rehabilitation and the fact that he has not exhibited any dangerousness of that magnitude now. He points out that his long countervailing record overcame any presumption of dangerousness. He also comments briefly that his shooting a man eight years ago did not show a violence and depravity similar to his possessing and transmitting the photo at issue. He urges this court to find that the application of sec. 4A1.3 was an abuse of the district court's discretion. 32 We usually review a district court's decision to depart in the criminal history category for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Trigg, 119 F.3d 493, 502 (7th Cir. 1997). However, Mr. Turchen's assertion that the district court gave insufficient weight to his long-term rehabilitation, we note, was not raised in his objections to the presentence report or to the district court at sentencing. Therefore we consider only whether the district court committed plain error in departing one criminal history category. See United States v. De Angelo, 167 F.3d 1167, 1169-70 (7th Cir. 1999). We find no error, plain or otherwise. The guideline states that a departure is warranted when the criminal history category significantly under- represents the seriousness of the defendant's criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit further crimes. In other words, the court had to find only one of the two disjunctive elements of sec. 4A1.3: either (a) that Mr. Turchen's criminal history inadequately reflects his true criminal past (a finding Mr. Turchen does not challenge); or (b) that Mr. Turchen's criminal history inadequately reflects the probability of recidivism. The court found the first prong; Mr. Turchen did not present evidence, or seek a finding, on the second prong. We hold that no error occurred. If, as Mr. Turchen assumes, the district court based the increase on the inadequacy of his criminal history score, that basis was a sufficient predicate for the court's action. The government also points out that this record reveals that Mr. Turchen posed a risk of recidivism and remained a danger to the community. His child pornography distribution over the internet and his collection of pornography in his home, amassed after his rehabilitation, show that there is no error, plain or clear, in the court's way of looking at the undisputed facts. Indeed, the district court's explicit mention of its obligation to protect society suggests strongly that the court was concerned about the possibility of recidivism. 33 As for Mr. Turchen's cursory mention that the attempted murder and the transmission of sadistic pornographic images do not show a similar violence, the district court was entitled to conclude that there is a sufficient similarity between the two acts. The district court determined that, just as the picture at issue here exhibited sadistic tendencies, the circumstances surrounding the shooting of a sleeping person, see supra note 8, exhibited those same tendencies. 34 Because we believe that the district court was entitled to impose an upward departure in the criminal history category under sec. 4A1.3, we need not consider whether the increase could have been imposed under sec. 5K2.0. 35