Opinion ID: 2974639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sentencing and Appellate Issues

Text: 15
Defendant argues that the district court erred in sentencing him as an armed career criminal because his three Kentucky state convictions for escape were not of a violent nature, were too remote in time from the instant offense, and were not separate in time from each other. We review this issue de novo. United States v. Maness, 23 F.3d 1006, 1008 (6th Cir. 1994). The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) provides, in pertinent part: In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and has three previous convictions by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) of this title for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than fifteen years, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not suspend the sentence of, or grant a probationary sentence to, such person with respect to the conviction under section 922(g). 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The term “violent felony” is statutorily defined as any crime that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another” or “is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves the use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). To determine whether an offense is a violent felony, a district court should use a “categorical approach” and look to the statutory definition. United States v. Hargrove, 416 F.3d 486, 494 (6th Cir. 2005). As an initial matter, defendant argues that the government did not provide proper notice of its intent to seek the ACCA enhancement. We disagree. First, the ACCA does not require notice. United States v. Mauldin, 109 F.3d 1159, 1163 (6th Cir. 1997). Second, defendant received notice. The indictment’s penalty page provided that defendant was facing the enhanced 16 penalty and the government filed a notice before trial listing defendant’s convictions and explaining that he was subject to the enhancement. Here, the district court found that defendant had five qualifying convictions: two convictions for first-degree escape in 1981, a robbery conviction in 1981, a second-degree escape conviction in 1987, and an attempted murder conviction in 1987. Defendant argues only that the prior escape convictions are not violent felonies. In Kentucky, “[a] person is guilty of escape in the first degree when he escapes from custody or a detention facility by the use or force or threat of force against another person.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 520.020. Second-degree escape occurs when a person “escapes from a detention facility or, being charged with or convicted of a felony, he escapes from custody.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 520.030. Under the categorical approach, defendant’s first-degree escape convictions constitute violent felonies because the offense contains the element of use or threatened use of force. Additionally, all of defendant’s escape convictions constitute violent felonies because escape carries a serious risk of potential physical injury if law enforcement or others attempted to interfere with an escape or retake an escapee. See United States v. Houston, 187 F.3d 593, 594-95 (6th Cir. 1999); United States v. Harris, 165 F.3d 1062, 1068 (6th Cir. 1999). The argument that the escape convictions were “stale” and “unrelated” and therefore cannot be used to apply the enhancement lacks merit. The ACCA does not exclude convictions based on remoteness in time. See United States v. Wright, 48 F.3d 254, 255-56 (7th Cir. 1995); see also U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4, comment n.1 (stating that guideline time periods for counting prior sentences are not applicable to the ACCA). 17 As to relatedness, the ACCA requires only three previous convictions that were “committed on occasions different from one another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Convictions that are part of a series of criminal episodes are counted separately under the ACCA if each episode is “a punctuated occurrence with a limited duration.” United States v. Thomas, 211 F.3d 316, 319 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Hughes, 924 F.2d 1354, 1361 (6th Cir. 1991)). Here, the first escape was on June 21, 1981 and ended upon a capture on June 26, 1981. The next escape was on July 12, 1981, and ended upon an arrest on August 3, 1981. The last escape was on November 1987, and ended upon a capture on December 9, 1987. The escapes were distinct in time and each was a separate occurrence. The fact that defendant was convicted of the two 1981 escapes in the same proceedings is irrelevant. Overall, the district court did not err in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal.
Defendant argues that his sentence as an armed career offender was improper in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 755-56 (2005). He argues that the district court erred in sentencing him under a mandatory guideline scheme. Because this claim was not raised below, we review for plain error. United States v. Oliver, 397 F.3d 369, 377-78 (6th Cir. 2005). Under the plain-error test, we may vacate the sentence if there was an “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997). 18 In Booker, the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines be treated as advisory, not mandatory. Under Booker, we subject sentences to reasonableness review, United States v. Williams, 432 F.3d 621, 622 (6th Cir. 2005), which has substantive and procedural components, United States v. Jones, 445 F.3d 865, 869 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). The district court must (1) acknowledge the applicable Guideline range; (2) discuss the reasonableness of a variation from that range; (3) consider the advisory provisions of the Guidelines; and (4) consider the other factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Williams, 432 F.3d at 622-23; see United States v. Coffee, 434 F.3d 887, 898 (6th Cir.) (“ ‘District courts AAA must AAA calculate the Guideline range as they would have done prior to Booker, but then sentence defendants by taking into account all of the relevant factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553, as well as the Guidelines range.’”) (quoting United States v. Stone, 432 F.3d 651, 654-55 (6th Cir.2005)), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2313 (2006). Here, although defendant contends otherwise, no Sixth Amendment violation occurred. Defendant’s guidelines range of 253-293 months was based solely on the fact of his prior convictions. Whether defendant has prior convictions and whether the convictions qualified as predicate offenses under the ACCA were not questions that needed to be submitted to the jury under Booker. See United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516, 524-25 (6th Cir. 2005). However, this does not mean that no plain error occurred. We have held that a defendant’s sentence violates Booker if the district court treated the guidelines as mandatory even though, as here, there is no Sixth Amendment violation. In Barnett, supra, we held that in such a circumstance prejudice is presumed but the government may rebut the presumption when “the trial record contain clear and specific evidence that the district court would not have, in any 19 event, sentenced the defendant to a lower sentence under an advisory Guidelines regime.” Barnett, 398 F.3d at 529. Although the government contends that the record does contain such evidence, we disagree. The district court gave some indication why it was sentencing defendant to the top of the guidelines range, including that he did not “have sympathy for defendant,” that defendant was “a life-long criminal,” and “a violent criminal,” but the district court gave no indication what it would do if not constrained by the guidelines. In other words, we do not find “clear and specific evidence” as to the district court’s sentence under an advisory Guidelines regime. The fact that the district court sentenced defendant at the top of the guidelines does not rebut the presumption that the plain error arguably caused defendant to receive a more severe sentence than he might have received otherwise. See United States v. Simons, 150 Fed. Appx, 428, 439 (6th Cir. 2005) (vacated under Booker despite sentence at top of the range); United States v. Meeker, 411 F.3d 736, 746 (6th Cir. 2005) (vacated under Booker despite upward departure from the guidelines). As such, the case muse be remanded for resentencing.
Defendant argues that his due process rights were violated because he had to wait thirteen months before receiving his trial and sentencing transcripts. We review questions of law de novo and questions of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. See United States v. Smith, 94 F.3d 204, 208 (6th Cir. 1996). In determining whether an appellate delay violates a defendant's due process right to a speedy trial, we apply the test set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) which requires consideration of (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the 20 party’s assertion of his rights, and (4) prejudice to the party suffering the delay. Smith, 94 F.3d at 208-13. When balanced, the factors to not weigh in defendant’s favor. First, the length of the delay is significantly less than two years, a time period some courts have assumed or held to violate due process in the case of an appellate delay. Id. The thirteen month delay is similar in length to delays that have not been found to violate due process. See United States v. Pratt, 645 F.2d 89, 91 (1st Cir. 1981) (holding that nine month delay in receiving transcripts did not rise to the level of a due process violation). The second and third factors do, however, weigh in defendant’s favor. The reason for the delay in this case was a delay in the preparation of the trial transcripts by the court reporter, with whom it was apparently difficult to communicate. The government concedes that while it could not have done anything to expedite production of the transcripts, responsibility rests with it rather than defendant. Defendant also asserted his right to a speedy appeal by requesting the transcripts soon after filing an appeal, by attempting to follow up on the request, and by moving this Court to compel production. Significantly, the final factor, prejudice, does not weigh in defendant’s favor. While defendant may have suffered “anxiety” over the delay, he has not alleged that the delay impaired his ability to present any issues on appeal. Defendant has presented numerous issues on appeal, all of which have been fully reviewed.