Opinion ID: 524066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Prior Convictions as Related Cases Within the Meaning of Sec. 4A1.2(a)(2).

Text: 28 Flores next asserts that even if the prior convictions were properly characterized as crimes of violence, they are related cases so that the district court should have counted all of the convictions as one for purposes of sentencing. The term two prior felony convictions as used in Sec. 4B1.1 is clarified at Sec. 4B1.2(3) of the Guidelines: 29 (A) the defendant committed the instant offense subsequent to sustaining at least two felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense ..., and (B) the sentences for at least two of the aforementioned felony convictions are counted separately under the provisions of Part A of this Chapter. 30 The relevant portion of Part A, Application Note 3, indicates that prior sentences imposed are to be counted separately in unrelated cases and as one sentence in related cases under Sec. 4B1.1. Sec. 4A1.2(a)(2). Cases are considered related if they '(1) occurred on a single occasion, (2) were part of a single common scheme or plan, or (3) were consolidated for trial or sentencing.'  Application Note 3, Sec. 4A1.2. Flores asserts that the six prior convictions were related because they were consolidated for trial and sentencing. 31 As to his argument that his convictions were consolidated for trial, he points out that two of his convictions were consolidated for trial in Collin County, and that three of his convictions were consolidated for trial in Dallas. Flores' argument ignores a crucial point: only two prior unrelated convictions are needed. Thus, even if the convictions that were consolidated count only as one sentence, the six convictions were tried in three separate trials in three separate counties on three separate dates, covering a period of over one and a half years. At the least, the district court had evidence of three prior convictions that were unrelated as to their actual trials. 32 Flores further asserts that the convictions should be considered related because all six were consolidated for sentencing. His argument is based on the fact that the six sentences ran concurrently. His argument fails. While two judges ordered that the sentence for the separate convictions begin on September 8, 1972, they made no reference to any of the other convictions. The third judge did not specify September 8 as the starting date; however, that date was the effective date because the court ordered that Flores receive credit for the 688 days he had already served. It was through operation of the law then that the sentences ran concurrently. Tex.Code Crim.Proc. Sec. 42.08 (Vernon's 1979). Simply because two convictions have concurrent sentences does not mean that the crimes are related under Part A. See Supplementary Illustrations, Examples B.3, B.4, Sec. 4A1.2(a)(2). Mere concurrent sentences are not enough to defeat the policy of the Guidelines: 33 The commission shall assure that the guidelines specify a sentence to a substantial term of imprisonment for categories of defendants in which the defendant--(1) has a history of two or more prior federal, state, or local felony convictions for offenses committed on different occasions; .... 34 28 U.S.C. Sec. 994(i) (emphasis added). While there may or may not have been six separate sentencing proceedings, there were at least three, and two were all that were needed under the definition of a career offender. 35 We find that Flores has more than two convictions that are unrelated as to their trials and sentences. Flores is a career offender under the Guidelines.