Opinion ID: 694385
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comment on Post-Arrest Silence

Text: 21 Defendant-appellant further argues that the prosecutor's comments were an impermissible reference to his post-arrest silence. Specifically, appellant contends that the thrust of the comments was not to point out inconsistencies between May's trial testimony and his post-arrest statements, but was instead to suggest that May was guilty because an innocent person would have presented his withdrawal contention to the arresting officers. We do not agree. In the first instance, the record indicates that May never formally invoked his right to remain silent; rather, it appears that May was forthcoming with information and simply chose to tell various versions of his story when speaking to the authorities. In any event, even if it can be said that May partially invoked his right to remain silent, the prosecutor's comments do not constitute a violation of May's due process rights. 22 In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), the United States Supreme Court established the holding that the use for impeachment purposes of a defendant's post-arrest and post-Miranda-warning silence violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 4 Id. at 619, 96 S.Ct. at 2245. This rule is based upon a recognition that it is fundamentally unfair for the government to inform a defendant of his right to remain silent and then ask at trial that a negative inference be drawn from that silence. United States v. Canterbury, 985 F.2d 483, 486 (10th Cir.1993). Then in a later Supreme Court case, Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404, 100 S.Ct. 2180, 65 L.Ed.2d 222 (1980), the defendant argued that the prosecutor's questions on cross-examination, regarding the defendant's failure to tell the same story at the time of his arrest as he was telling at trial, violated the rule announced in Doyle. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, stating that Doyle does not apply to cross-examination that merely inquires into prior inconsistent statements. Such questioning makes no unfair use of silence, because a defendant who voluntarily speaks after receiving Miranda warnings has not been induced to remain silent. Id. 447 U.S. at 408, 100 S.Ct. at 2182. The Court found such line of questioning proper because it was designed to elicit an explanation for a prior inconsistent statement rather than to draw inferences from silence. Id. at 409, 100 S.Ct. at 2182-83. In conclusion, the Supreme Court stated: Each of two inconsistent descriptions of events may be said to involve 'silence' insofar as it omits facts included in the other version. But Doyle does not require any such formalistic understanding of 'silence,' and we find no reason to adopt such a view in this case. Id. 23 In United States v. Canterbury, 985 F.2d 483 (10th Cir.1993), relied on by defendant-appellant, this Court recognized the principle that while due process forbids comment on a defendant's post-arrest, post-Miranda silence, a prosecutor may impeach a defendant's trial testimony with prior inconsistent statements. Id. at 486. However, application of the Doyle and Anderson principles was complicated by the fact that Canterbury did not remain totally silent, but instead made several statements to the police after receiving Miranda warnings. As stated in Canterbury, we have previously recognized that when a defendant is partially silent by answering some questions and refusing to answer others, this partial silence does not preclude him from claiming a violation of his due process rights under Doyle. Id. (citing United States v. Harrold, 796 F.2d 1275, 1279 n. 3 (10th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1037, 107 S.Ct. 892, 93 L.Ed.2d 844 (1987)). In Canterbury we determined that the appropriate inquiry in these situations is whether the cross-examination was designed to impeach the defendant's trial testimony by calling attention to prior inconsistent statements or, instead, was designed to suggest an inference of guilt from the defendant's post-arrest silence. Id. 24 In United States v. Mora, 845 F.2d 233 (10th Cir.1988), we recognized that the test for determining if there has been an impermissible 25 comment on a defendant's right to remain silent at the time of his arrest is whether the language used was manifestly intended or was of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the defendant's right to remain silent.... The court must look to the context in which the statement was made in order to determine the manifest intention which prompted it and its natural and necessary impact on the jury. 26 Id. at 235 (quoting United States v. Morales-Quinones, 812 F.2d 604 (10th Cir.1987)) (citation omitted). Viewing the prosecutor's comments in context, we conclude that they were not manifestly intended to be a comment on defendant-appellant's partial silence nor would the jury naturally and necessarily take them as such. Rather, the focus of the prosecutor's comments was not on May's failure to present his exculpatory story at the time of arrest, but on prior inconsistent stories as in Anderson v. Charles, supra. Because the prosecutor's comments were designed to call attention to prior inconsistent statements, such comments do not constitute a violation of May's due process rights under Doyle. II Validity of Cost of Imprisonment Fine 27 Pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines Sec. 5E1.2(i), 5 the district court imposed an additional fine based on the costs of May's imprisonment and supervised release. Defendant-appellant argues that this additional fine is invalid for two reasons: (1) it serves none of the purposes of punishment set forth at the time of the offense in the Sentencing Reform Act and therefore lacks statutory authorization; 6 and (2) it is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause for being irrationally tied to a government expense that fine money cannot by law be used to offset. Brief for Appellant at 38. 28 In support of his argument, defendant-appellant relies primarily on United States v. Spiropoulos, 976 F.2d 155 (3rd Cir.1992), in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down this provision of the sentencing guidelines on the ground that Congress has not yet authorized such a penalty. The Spiropoulos court interpreted the guideline as contemplating the payment of the fine for the sole purpose of compensating the government for the costs of imprisonment and not for victim restitution. Id. at 166. The court concluded that such a purpose is inconsistent with the Sentencing Reform Act, rendering Sec. 5E1.2(i) invalid. Id. at 167. In evaluating the constitutionality of the guideline, the Spiropoulos court refused to consider the governmental purpose of recouping the costs of imprisonment since it found that such a purpose is not expressed in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553 or 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3572 of the Sentencing Reform Act. Id. at 168. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals further disagreed with the argument that the guideline is a rational means of calculating restitution for the reason that the cost of imprisoning a defendant has little, if anything, to do with the amount that that defendant has harmed his or her victim(s), and is therefore questionable as an appropriate method of restitution. Id. 29 The Spiropoulos holding conflicts with the holdings in other circuits, however. As the third circuit opinion recognized, its holding is in direct conflict with the reasoning of United States v. Hagmann, 950 F.2d 175 (5th Cir.1991), in which the defendant-appellant also argued that the guideline is contrary to the Sentencing Reform Act's mandate that the guidelines be consistent with the purposes of sentencing set forth at 18 U.S.C. Secs. 3553(a)(2) and 3572(a). In Hagmann, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that it was irrational for the Sentencing Commission to develop a guideline that uses the government's cost for incarcerating or supervising a convicted criminal as part of the calculation to determine that criminal's fine. Id. at 187. The Hagmann court reasoned: 30 Once convicted, criminals impose a dual financial cost upon society--both the price of their imprisonment and the expense of trying to alleviate some of the personal cost inflicted upon their victims. Criminals' terms of imprisonment generally reflect, among other things, the seriousness of their crimes and the harm they have inflicted upon their victims. We find, therefore, that the uniform practice of fining criminals on the basis of their individualistic terms of imprisonment--an indicator of the actual harm each has inflicted upon society--is a rational means to assist the victims of crime collectively. 31 Likewise, the Spiropoulos court noted that its holding may also conflict with this Court's holding in United States v. Doyan, 909 F.2d 412 (10th Cir.1990). Although the argument in Doyan was based on an equal protection challenge rather than due process, this Court was ultimately required to decide the same issue: whether requiring such reimbursement from a convicted felon for the costs of his incarceration bears some rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Id. at 416; and see Spiropoulos, 976 F.2d at 168 n. 13. In Doyan, a panel of this Court concluded, Whether the purpose of the contested fine is to punish, deter, or to spare the taxpayers a substantial expense that has been generated by an intentional criminal act, we cannot say that Guideline Sec. 5E1.2(i) as applied here bears no rational relation to the legitimate governmental interest in criminal justice. Doyan, 909 F.2d at 416. In accordance with our decision in Doyan and the decision in Hagmann, we find that the sentencing guideline is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. 32 In United States v. Turner, 998 F.2d 534 (7th Cir.1993), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals specifically criticized the holding in Spiropoulos. The seventh circuit rejected the third circuit's conclusion (which was based on the reasoning that measuring a fine by the costs of confinement does not reflect any of the statutory objectives of sentencing) that the Sentencing Commission exceeded its authority in promulgating Sec. 5E1.2(i). The Turner court noted that Congress told the Commission to consider the deterrent effect a particular sentence may have on the commission of the offense by others. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 994(c)(6). Also, district courts are advised to impose sentences that reflect the seriousness of the offense and afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. Secs. 3553(a)(2)(A) and (B). The seventh circuit court reasoned that because the guidelines provide for longer sentences as the harm caused by the offense rises, the costs of confinement rise with the seriousness of the crime; and a fine based on these costs therefore reflects the seriousness of the offense. Turner, 998 F.2d at 536. The system of penalties under the Guidelines is constructed on the belief that higher fines, and longer sentences of imprisonment, are more effective deterrents.... Guideline 5E1.2(i) increases the fines imposed on defendants, and therefore increases deterrence. Id. 33 Nothing more is necessary to show that the Commission acted within its statutory authority. And despite the third circuit's qualms, 976 F.2d at 167, the rationality of the approach cannot be doubted. The costs of incarceration do not precisely reflect social loss and deterrence, to be sure, but the Constitution does not require a close match between the gravity of the offense and the penalty meted out. 34 Id. 35 Likewise, the second circuit rejected the contention that the Sentencing Commission exceeded the scope of its statutory authority by promulgating Sec. 5E1.2(i). In United States v. Leonard, 37 F.3d 32 (2nd Cir.1994), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted the existence of a split in the circuits as to the validity of Sec. 5E1.2(i), citing to United States v. Spiropoulos, supra, and United States v. Turner, supra, ultimately agreeing with the reasoning and result reached by the seventh circuit in Turner. Id. at 39. In adopting the seventh circuit's analysis, the Leonard court stated, 36 The Third Circuit's ruling unnecessarily restricts the guideline to serving as a recoupment measure without exploring its functional role within the sentencing scheme.... [W]e think it appropriate to evaluate the guideline in the context of the guidelines as a whole and the criminal justice theories on which they were constructed. In doing so, we conclude the Sentencing Commission's promulgation of Sec. 5E1.2(i) to have been a proper exercise of its authority to formulate sentencing guidelines that account for the seriousness of a defendant's offense and the deterrence his sentence may have on others. 37 Id. at 40. The second circuit also rejected the argument that imposition of a Sec. 5E1.2(i) fine contravenes the language in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a) that criminal sentences imposed under the guidelines must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of the Sentencing Reform Act. Like the defendant-appellant in this case, the defendants in Leonard contended that imposition of a fine in accordance with the fine table fully satisfies the purposes of the Act; therefore, the additional fine under Sec. 5E1.2(i) is greater than necessary. However, the second circuit court concluded that nothing in the Act indicates that the boundary of a sufficient fine is set by the fine table in Sec. 5E1.2(c). Id. See also Hagmann, 950 F.2d at 186 (rejecting argument that the purposes set forth at Sec. 3553(a)(2) are wholly realized by the fine table and therefore the Sec. 5E1.2(i) addition to that sum renders the overall fine excessive). 38 We disagree with defendant-appellant's contention that Sec. 5E1.2(i) is invalid because it lacks statutory authorization. In accordance with the reasoning and result reached by the seventh and second circuits, we conclude that the fine provided for under USSG Sec. 5E1.2(i) appropriately accounts for the seriousness of the offense and the deterrent effect a defendant's sentence may have on others and is not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of the Act.III Validity of Additional Fine Imposed 39 The fine imposed upon the defendant-appellant was comprised of $12,500.00 to be paid either in a lump sum or in installments as determined by the probation officer. Brief for Appellant, Addendum A at 64. At sentencing, the district judge further stated: 40 In addition, by way of an additional fine, I am going to impose on you the cost of your imprisonment and supervised release. At the moment, as the probation officer says, the monthly cost of imprisonment is $1,492.00. The monthly cost for supervision is $115.33. Whatever it is, you're to pay it, because I think you can pay your own way and the taxpayers are not going to be supporting you in prison, nor are they going to be supporting you on supervised release. 41 Id. at 64-65. Defendant-appellant contends that the district court's comments that the monthly amounts were correct only at the moment and particularly that Mr. May was to pay the amount whatever it is make the additional fine incurably ambiguous on the record. Brief for Appellant at 34. 42 We have previously stated that a sentence which is internally ambiguous to the point that a reasonable person cannot determine what the sentence is may be found illegal; however, not all ambiguous sentences are illegal sentences. United States v. Earley, 816 F.2d 1428, 1430-31 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc). Most sentencing ambiguities can be resolved by reviewing the record to ascertain the intent of the sentencing judge and identify the terms of the sentence. Id. at 1431. We have previously established the rule that [w]hen an orally pronounced sentence is ambiguous, ... the judgment and commitment order is evidence which may be used to determine the intended sentence. United States v. Villano, 816 F.2d 1448, 1451 (10th Cir.1987) (citing Baca v. United States, 383 F.2d 154, 157 (10th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 929, 88 S.Ct. 868, 19 L.Ed.2d 994 (1968)); see also Earley, 816 F.2d at 1431. As we recognized in Villano, the purpose of the written order is to help clarify an ambiguous oral sentence by providing evidence of what was said from the bench. Villano, 816 F.2d at 1451. 43 There is some ambiguity in the district judge's oral pronouncement as to the amount of the additional fine imposed on defendant-appellant. Unfortunately, however, neither the written memorandum of sentencing hearing filed on September 12, 1992, nor the written Judgment filed September 14, 1992 reflecting the sentence, aid in clarifying the amount of the additional fine. See Brief for Appellant Addendum B and C. In fact, the written Judgment further confuses the matter as it incorrectly provides that the $12,500.00 fine includes any costs of incarceration and/or supervision and makes payment of the fine and costs merely a condition of supervised release. Brief of Appellant Addendum C at 3-4. 44 Accordingly, that portion of defendant-appellant's sentence which imposes an additional fine pursuant to USSG Sec. 5E1.2(i) is vacated and the matter is remanded to the district court for resentencing, at which time the district court is directed to impose any additional fine with specificity as to the costs of imprisonment and supervised release. IV