Opinion ID: 75617
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Greene's Performance at Sentencing

Text: 11 Hagins also argues that Greene rendered ineffective assistance at his sentencing hearing, and accordingly, he received a longer sentence than he should have. Specifically, Hagins argues that Greene never compared the PSI to the trial transcript to check for inaccuracies and never reviewed it with Hagins prior to the day of sentencing. He also argues that Greene's failure to object to the enhancement of his sentence based on a prior conviction was prejudicial because his prior conviction was not yet final. Finally, Hagins argues that Greene should have objected to the same enhancement on the grounds that the conviction was included in his relevant conduct for the federal conspiracy charge and was not a proper predicate conviction. We address each of these issues in turn.
12 The record reflects that Greene never reviewed the PSI with Hagins before the day of the sentencing hearing. 1 Hagins now argues that if Greene had compared the PSI to the trial transcript, he would have noticed the discrepancy between Johnson's testimony at trial, i.e. that Hagins provided one of two drug amounts that Johnson gave Everette, and his statement to the probation officer preparing the PSI that Hagins had provided both of the drug quantities Everette received. Hagins cannot demonstrate, however, that Greene's failure to review the PSI with him prior to sentencing prejudiced him in any way. 13 Hagins essentially argues that the drug weight of one of the two transactions was improperly counted against him when his sentence under the guidelines was calculated. Hagins' sentence was based on an attribution to him of 50 to 100 grams of crack. Hagins argues that if only one buy was attributed to him, as supported by the trial testimony, he would only have been responsible for 22.8 grams and the mandatory minimum sentence would not have been applicable. See Appellant's Brief, at 18. Hagins ignores, however, the evidence at trial which attributed to him substantially more than 50 grams. Agent Gannon testified that Hagins admitted to him in their interview that Hagins had progressed into the quarter kilogram weight . . . during the last year. Ex. Vol.4-174-177. Hagins also admitted to Gannon that he had purchased a quarter of a kilogram (250 grams) of cocaine on his last trip to Florida with Johnson, and on the trip during which he was arrested he was carrying $10,000 to purchase a half a kilogram (500 grams). Id. Johnson also testified that he traveled to Augusta, Georgia three or four times with Hagins to purchase three to four ounces of crack each time. 2 Because of the evidence presented at trial about the large quantity of cocaine and crack Hagins was buying and selling, he cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by Greene's failure to challenge the drug quantity attributed to him on the PSI.
14 Hagins also protests the enhancement of his sentence to a mandatory minimum of twenty years due to a prior drug conviction. On 19 February 1996, Hagins pled guilty in Jenkins County, Georgia state court to possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Hagins was sentenced under Georgia's First Offender Act, O.C.G.A. § 42-8-60, et seq., adjudication of guilt was withheld, and he was given five years probation. Because of Hagins's arrest for the federal offense, the state court on 22 January 1997 revoked his first offender status and sentenced him to fifteen years in prison for the state possession with intent to distribute charge. When Hagins was sentenced on the federal charge, Greene did not object to the enhancement of his sentence based on the prior state conviction. 15 A sentence enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) is proper if based on a final prior conviction. Hagins argues that his prior conviction was not final until after the conspiracy terminated, as evidenced by the district court's entry of a judgment and commitment order (J&C) stating that Hagins' participation in the conspiracy ended 13 February 1996. Hagins argues that the judge's later correction of the J&C to alter the date of Hagins' involvement in the conspiracy was improper. Even if the alteration of the J&C was proper, Hagins also argues that his prior conviction was not final until he exhausted his discretionary direct appeal of the revocation of his first offender status. Accordingly, he asks us to find that Greene rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the enhancement. 16
17 Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that [c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time. Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. The district court's original J&C stated that the date Hagins' offense concluded was 13 February, 1996. Ex. Vol.3-165-1. At trial, however, the evidence presented included an audio tape of a conversation between Johnson and Hagins on 28 March, 1996. During that call, Hagins informed Johnson that he did not have an extra two ounces of cocaine, but did have the original amount Johnson had asked him to obtain. Ex. Vol. 4-174-103. At sentencing, the district judge adopted the findings of the PSI, which included a description of the 28 March, 1996 phone call. We find that the district judge properly amended the J&C pursuant to Rule 36. The change was a clerical one. See United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 666 (2000) (holding that, where a written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncements of the sentencing judge, the oral pronouncement at sentencing controls). 18
19 Hagins also argues that his prior state conviction cannot be used to enhance his sentence because it is still not yet final. Hagins was sentenced as a first offender on 19 February, 1996. According to Georgia law, he had thirty days to appeal that sentence. See O.C.G.A. § 5-6-38 (A notice of appeal shall be filed within 30 days after entry of the appealable decision or judgment complained of). The Georgia courts have held that classification as a first offender starts the clock for purposes of filing an appeal. [F]irst-offender status takes the place of a 'sentence' and once imposed upon a criminal defendant, his case assumes the mantle of finality necessary to bring a direct appeal of his conviction. Dean v. State, 338 S.E.2d 711, 712 (Ga.Ct.App. 1985). 20 Hagins argues, however, that the finality of his conviction should run from the direct discretionary appeal of the revocation of his first-offender status. This argument is specious. In United States v. Fernandez, the defendant had received a year of probation after pleading nolo contendere to a state charge of trafficking in cocaine. 58 F.3d 593, 599 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We held that a sentence may be enhanced based on such a prior state court sentence of probation under a deferral statute. Id. at 599-600. See also United States v. Jones, 910 F.2d 760, 761 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that a similar disposition qualified as a prior conviction for purposes of determining career offender status). If such a conviction can be used to enhance a defendant's sentence without a revocation of probation, it follows that we need not wait for revocation of probation and any related appeal to deem the conviction final. Hagins' conviction became final when the thirty days available to him to appeal the original disposition expired. That date was 23 March 1996. Because Hagins' conviction was final he cannot demonstrate prejudice from Greene's failure to object to his sentence enhancement on that basis. 21
22 Finally, Hagins asserts that he was prejudiced by Greene's failure to object at sentencing to enhancement of his sentence because the prior conviction was for drug activity that was part of the same course of conduct as his federal charge. He relies on United States v. Hansley, 54 F.3d 709 (11th Cir. 1995) to argue that insufficient time passed between his state conviction and federal arrest to allow use of the state conviction as a predicate offense for enhancement purposes. In Hansley, eighteen months passed between the state conviction and federal arrest. Id. at 717. The test, however, is not mere passage of time. As the court noted in Hansley, because the intent of the enhancement provision is to target recidivism, the focus of the inquiry is on 'the degree of criminal activity that occurs after a defendant's conviction for drug-related activity is final rather than when the conspiracy began.' Id. (quoting United States v. Garcia, 32 F.3d 1017, 1019-20 (7th Cir. 1994)). See also United States v. Howard, 115 F.3d 1151, 1158 (4th Cir. 1997) (relying on Hansley to determine that conviction during course of conspiracy can serve as prior conviction for enhancement purposes when a month elapsed between state conviction and federal arrest). 23 In Howard, evidence was presented that the defendant continued to engage in the conspiracy after his state conviction. Id. at 1158. Similarly, Hagins continued to provide drugs to Johnson as evidenced by the tape of the 28 March phone call. When Hagins was arrested he had a significant amount of cash which he admitted he was going to use to purchase drugs. As in Howard, [t]he only thing that aborted [his] participation in the drug conspiracy was his arrest in this case. Id. Hagins argument that the state conviction was part of the same course of conduct and cannot serve as a predicate conviction for enhancement purposes is without merit. Accordingly, he cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by Greene's failure to object.