Opinion ID: 1358073
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: StovallDenial of Counsel

Text: Stovall also argues that he was denied counsel because evidence from Clay's trial was submitted without adequate lead time before Stovall's sentencing hearing. He contends that because the 24 volumes of transcripts and exhibits from Clay's trial were introduced only one week before sentencing, he was constructively denied counsel. Stovall argues that even competent counsel could not have provided effective assistance and that prejudice should be presumed. Stovall cites United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), for the proposition that structural constitutional error can occur when an accused is denied counsel at a critical stage of the proceeding. This proposition, although true in principle, has no impact on Stovall's case because he has not shown that a denial of counsel actually occurred. Cronic involved a criminal defendant in a complex fraud case whose appointed counsel was an inexperienced civil attorney. Id. at 649, 104 S.Ct. 2039. The defendant's counsel was given only 25 days to prepare for trial, which involved the review of thousands of pages of documentary evidence. Id. Nonetheless, the Court held that [t]his case is not one in which the surrounding circumstances make it unlikely that the defendant could have received the effective assistance of counsel. Id. at 666, 104 S.Ct. 2039. The Court contrasted the defendant's case with that of the defendants in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), who had indeed been denied counsel because their attorney was named on the day of trial in a capital case. Stovall's case is much more akin to the defendant in Cronic than to the defendants in Powell. Stovall was represented by counsel at all phases of his prosecution. It was less than optimal to have counsel burdened with a difficult document review task prior to sentencing. Nonetheless, Stovall has made no convincing argument based on the record or cited any controlling authority that the district court's admission of a large quantity of documentary evidence a week before his sentencing hearing constituted a complete denial of counsel. Stovall also argues that one week to review 24 volumes from Clay's trial constituted insufficient notice under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. He argues that this short time frame allowed him an inadequate opportunity to comment on the factual information on which his sentence was based. Stovall seems to argue that Rule 32(c)(1) was violated, citing United States v. Nappi, 243 F.3d 758 (3d Cir.2001), as support. But Nappi involved a defendant who had not received a copy of the presentence investigation report (PSR) prior to sentencing. Id. at 760. The defendant did not object at the time of sentencing, and the court ultimately upheld the sentence on plain error review. Id. In contrast, Stovall received his PSR before sentencing and has not alleged that he did not receive it within the time frame prescribed by Rule 32(e)(2). [3] He instead argues that the transcript from Clay's trial made preparing for a sentencing hearing essentially impossible. We disagree. The PSR itself put Stovall on notice of the factual allegations upon which his sentence recommendation would be based. It was not necessary to review the entire Clay transcript in order to address the facts alleged in the PSR. In fact, Stovall made only two objections to the PSRone pertaining to the enhancement for leadership role and the other based on the application of a § 2D1.1(d)(1) cross reference. He does not state what evidence was admitted based on the Clay transcript that unfairly prejudiced him that would have been meaningfully disputed had he had more time to prepare. Stovall mentions that the court denied his request to subpoena witnesses to refute the evidence as untimely but did not appeal that ruling. Although the government appears, as the saying goes, to have had its cake (severed trial) and eaten it too (admission of co-defendant's trial transcript in sentencing), Stovall has fallen short in both fact and legal authority of showing that the district court committed reversible error in applying Rule 32. We conclude Stovall's conclusory argument of inadequate notice is unavailing on this record.