Opinion ID: 204743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Conca's Criminal History Score

Text: In calculating Conca's criminal history score, the District Court properly included Conca's 1996 New York conviction on the felony charge of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree. Although the conviction was ultimately replaced by a youthful offender adjudication, Conca was convicted as an adult and received a sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(d)(1). Although Conca originally was sentenced to time served (106 days) and a five-year term of probation, he was resentenced for the same offense to a term of imprisonment of 1-3 years as a consequence of violating his probation. He thus received a sentence of imprisonment in excess of one year and one month. A sentence of imprisonment under the Guidelines means a sentence of incarceration and refers to the maximum sentence imposed. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(b)(1). In scoring a criminal history category, criminal history points are based on the sentence pronounced, not the length of time actually served. Id. § 4A1.2, application note 2. In the case of revocation of probation, the Sentencing Guidelines instruct a district court to add the original term of imprisonment to any term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation, and [t]he resulting total is used to compute the criminal history points for § 4A1.1(a), (b), or (c). Id. § 4A1.2(k)(1). Conca's sentence to an indeterminate term of 1-3 years upon revocation of his probation therefore fits within the requirement of a received sentence exceeding 13 months. In addressing the issue of whether Conca was convicted as an adult, the District Court properly examined the nature of th[e] prior proceeding, the sentence received and actually served, and where the defendant was incarcerated. Driskell, 277 F.3d at 151. The District Court also reviewed the substance of the prior conviction giving rise to the youthful offender adjudication and focus[ed] on the nature of th[e] proceedings, the sentences received, and the actual time served. Id. at 157 (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the court recognized the many variables that informed its inquiry into the issue of adult conviction. Jackson, 504 F.3d at 253. The District Court noted that Conca was adjudicated a youthful offender but then he violated after that and was revoked and went away and did some time. Information available to the District Court in the PSR indeed revealed that Conca was incarcerated in an adult facility following the revocation of his probation, since he completed a shock incarceration program maintained by the New York State Department of Correctional Services, the agency that administers the New York state prison system and that is responsible for the custody of adult offenders. The shock incarceration program was available to eligible inmates between the ages of 16 and 50 who had not previously been convicted of certain violent felonies and who met other statutory criteria. It provides a six-month period of rigorous physical activity, intensive regimentation and discipline and rehabilitation theory and programming. N.Y. CORRECT. LAW § 865(2) (McKinney Supp.2010). Successful completion of the program leads to parole or conditional release. Id. § 867(4). Conca was released on parole on June 4, 1998, having been incarcerated since August of 1997. Conca never was confined in a juvenile facility administered by the New York State Department of Youth. Conca claims on appeal that neither the record nor the PSR indicate[s] the nature of the proceeding, the type of sentence imposed, served and where the sentence[ ] w[as] served. That is just not so, as demonstrated above. Conca also argues that [t]he District Court failed to examine the substance of the prior conviction and the resulting sentence. But the District Court indicated that it well understood these matters, which were clearly described to the court in the PSR. Conca concludes his argument on appeal as follows: Should this Court find that the record did not support that Mr. Conca was not convicted as an adult, then the prior offense in 1996 should not be counted toward the calculation of the criminal history category under section 4A1.2(d). In agreement with the District Court, we conclude that there is adequate record support for the District Court's finding that Conca was convicted as an adult. In addition, the District Court indicated that it considered all of the factors described in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and decided to impose a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines based on the nature and character of [Conca's] past; on the need to specifically deter him from continuing in that conduct; and the overriding need for people in the public, and women especially, for protection from Mr. Conca. The District Court's detailed reasoning is fully adequate to justify the sentence imposed in all respects.