Opinion ID: 204743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sentencing Proceedings in the District Court

Text: Both parties submitted sentencing memoranda in the District Court. The government adopt[ed] the offense level computations, the criminal history score, and the resulting Sentencing Guidelines range set forth in the [PSR] in all respects. Accordingly, the government argued for a sentence within the Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months as `sufficient, but not greater than necessary,' to take into account all of the relevant sentencing factors described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In his sentencing memorandum, Conca challenged the 6-level increase assessed in the PSR for commission of a sex crime while in failure to register status. He contended that due process requires that the assessment await the outcome of his First Degree Rape trial in Oklahoma. Conca argued that more reliable facts [were] needed in regard to the pending rape charge. In making that argument, he pointed out that, although the PSR included a summary of an affidavit supporting a charging document in the Oklahoma case, [i]t [was] unknown whether a finding of probable cause after hearing or Indictment has been returned in the case, and that the source of the information reported by the police, or the source of the DNA test, the method used, or the actual results obtained also were unknown. As to the criminal history calculation, Conca repeated in his sentencing memorandum the same arguments made in his objection to the PSR, viz., that he was not treated as an adult but as a youthful offender, and that his 1996 conviction should add no points to his criminal history score since he was released from prison more than five years prior to the instant offense. In the alternative, Conca sought a departure to lower the sentence to more appropriately reflect the criminal history of the offender. At a sentencing hearing held on October 14, 2009, counsel for the government adverted to the two matters that were in reasonable dispute. One was the criminal history category to be utilized and the second was the 6-level enhancement arising from the Oklahoma First Degree Rape charge. In regard to the latter, the court heard testimony from Detective Dan Sheehan and Kyla England, both of the Oklahoma City Police Department. Counsel for Conca offered no evidence on the 6-level enhancement issue but did argue that the government did not meet its burden of demonstrating that the enhancement was warranted. Specifically, counsel for Conca asserted that Conca would have his full day in court in Oklahoma and that, although hearsay is admissible and there is very limited discovery that occurred with regard to many of the reports that the detective spoke about . . . even in light of those circumstances, we'd ask the Court not to impose the six-level enhancement. In his argument at the sentencing hearing, counsel for Conca also referred to his argument that his client should not be treated for criminal history purposes as an adult offender for the crime as to which he was adjudicated a youthful offender. Counsel stated: But I would suggest that 4A1.3 should be exercised here, the Court should exercise its discretion and indicate that Mr. Conca's criminal history significantly overrepresents based on the fact that he was 16 years old at the time of that conviction, the violation was for another crime, which he was punished for, and which other points are added as well, so while it's not double counting, it certainly is counted twice, at least criminal history category 5 is more appropriate under the circumstances.