Opinion ID: 714051
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Double Jeopardy for Engaging in a Continuing Criminal Enterprise

Text: 55 Edwards was convicted of three individual counts of conspiring to distribute narcotics as well as being convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise. Edwards received concurrent sentences for these convictions; he now argues that because the conspiracy charged in count 3 is a lesser included offense of the continuing criminal enterprise charge, 15 he is being punished twice for the same conduct. 56 Edwards's indictment for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise includes the charge that Edwards conspired to distribute cocaine and heroin as part of a continuing series of criminal acts. Thus, Edwards's separate conviction for conspiring to distribute heroin and cocaine is a lesser included offense of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, where that criminal enterprise encompassed the drug conspiracy. See United States v. Baker, 905 F.2d 1100, 1103 (1990) (citing Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137, 97 S.Ct. 2207, 53 L.Ed.2d 168 (1977)), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 904, 111 S.Ct. 270, 112 L.Ed.2d 226 (1990). 57 The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects defendants from being tried and punished more than once for the same offense. It is well established that where a defendant is convicted of conspiring to distribute narcotics, and that conspiracy serves as conduct supporting a conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (thus a lesser included offense), there is no double jeopardy violation as long as the defendant does not receive cumulative sentences for the crimes. United States v. Rutledge, 40 F.3d 879, 886 (7th Cir.1994), cert. granted, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 2608, 132 L.Ed.2d 852 (1995); United States v. Canino, 949 F.2d 928, 949 (7th Cir.1991) (stating that concurrent sentences may be imposed where a conspiracy conviction is a lesser included offense of a conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise provided that the punishment does not exceed the maximum under the continuing criminal enterprise act); United States v. Bond, 847 F.2d 1233, 1239 (7th Cir.1988) (a court may impose concurrent sentences for a § 846 conspiracy and the CCE [continuing criminal enterprise] offense.). The reasoning behind the rule is that the act of agreeing to distribute narcotics (required for a conspiracy conviction) is distinct from actually operating a criminal enterprise that succeeds in distributing large amounts of narcotics. We have stated: 58 [O]ne can both conspire (agree to run a drug business) and run a continuing criminal enterprise (strike the agreement and succeed).... The two statutes reach the same group of persons. It is not illogical to convict a person of both agreeing to do something (§ 846) and succeeding on a grand scale (§ 848). 59 Id. at 1238. By imposing concurrent sentences for conspiring to distribute narcotics and engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, the district judge did not impose a cumulative penalty, and the sentence imposed was proper.