Court Opinion

ID: 9486580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:53:23.465994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:48.698131
License: Public Domain

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge,
with whom RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, and McMILLIAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the judgment of the court.
When this ease was originally argued, the government’s sole argument on appeal was that this court did not have jurisdiction to consider it. I agree entirely with the court *825that this argument is meritless. The statute provides an appeal for a sentence imposed “in violation of law,” 18 U.S.C. § 8742(a)(1), and the defendant’s argument here is that the district court relied on facts in sentencing him that were barred from consideration by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. It has to be plain that if the defendant is correct about his Sixth Amendment claim, and if the district judge would have imposed a different sentence absent the unconstitutional matter, then his sentence was imposed “in violation of law.”
In my opinion, defendant’s Sixth Amendment argument does indeed have merit. Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980), held that an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction cannot be used as a basis for a conviction of a felony that carries a prison term. Because the case did not produce an opinion in which a majority of the Court joined, considerable ingenuity has been employed in avoiding what seems to me its manifest purport, namely, that no incremental deprivation of liberty can be predicated on the fact of an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction. See, e.g., United States v. Nichols, 979 F.2d 402 (6th Cir.1992), and United States v. Castro-Vega, 945 F.2d 496 (2d Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1250, 122 L.Ed.2d 649 (1993). I agree with Judge Jones, dissenting in Nichols, 979 F.2d at 408, that it is impossible to discern any “logical or principled basis upon which to distinguish Baldosar” from the present case. It is “a distinction without a constitutional difference” that the increased sentence in Baldosar resulted from “an enhanced penalty statute that converted defendant’s misdemeanor into a felony, while the instant ease arises under the criminal-history provision of the sentencing guidelines.” Id. In United States v. Brady, 928 F.2d 844, 854 (9th Cir.1991), the court agreed, as I do, with Justice Marshall’s concurring opinion in Bal-dosar, “that an ‘uncounseled misdemeanor conviction [may] not be used collaterally to impose an increased term of imprisonment upon a subsequent conviction,’ ” quoting Baldasar, 446 U.S. at 226, 100 S.Ct. at 1587. To the same effect, see United States v. Williams, 891 F.2d 212, 214 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1037, 110 S.Ct. 1496, 108 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990).
I respectfully disagree with the court’s assertion that “Baldasar’s precise holding is elusive.”. Five of the justices who considered that case agreed that a person may not have a prison term enhanced on the basis of an uncounseled misdemeanor. Justice Stewart (joined by Justices Brennan and Stevens) wrote that the sentence was illegal because petitioner “was sentenced to an increased term- of imprisonment only because he had been convicted in a previous prosecution in which he had not had the assistance of appointed counsel in his defense.” Baldasar, 446 U.S. at 224, 100 S.Ct. at 1586. Justice Marshall (also joined by Justices Brennan and Stevens) wrote that the sentence should be reversed because a “prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction could not be used collaterally to impose-an increased term of. imprisonment upon a subsequent conviction.” Id. at 226, 100 S.Ct. at 1587. Justice Black-mun concurred on the ground that since petitioner “was not represented by an attorney, that conviction ... is invalid and may not be used to support an enhancement.” Id. at 230, 100 S.Ct. at 1589. These opinions, taken together, therefore establish that a majority of the Supreme Court has adopted the principle that uncounseled convictions cannot serve as a basis for an incremental deprivation of liberty. The fact that the justices created that principle from different material is of no consequence so far as the principle itself is concerned.
Even if I have not correctly parsed the Baldasar opinions, it does not follow that the court has resolved this case correctly. Baldasar, at a minimum, certainly does not require the result reached here. We are in some danger of forgetting that at the bottom of this case lies the Sixth Amendment and its right to counsel: simply put, the issue is whether a person may be constitutionally deprived of his liberty in this country without having a lawyer. I had thought that the answer to this question was plain enough.
It is true that we have held that a consideration of an erroneous matter in connection with a sentence is harmless if, as is 'the case here, the error does not affect the guideline range employed by the sentencing court. See, e.g., U.S. v. Manuel, 944 F.2d 414, 417 (8th Cir.1992). But this line of cases can *826claim no continued validity in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. United States, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992). In that case, the Court ruled that if a district court employed both valid and invalid matter in departing from the guidelines, the court of appeals often must remand the case in order to determine whether the district court would have imposed the same sentence, absent the offending facts. The opinion contains instructive language relevant to our case. A remand was necessary, the Court said, “unless the reviewing court concludes, oh the record as a whole, that the error was harmless, ie., that the error did not affect the district court’s selection of the sentence imposed.” Id. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1120-21 (emphasis supplied). In my view, Williams has therefore undermined our previously announced version of harmless error in sentencing matters.
Because we cannot tell if this sentence was in violation of law unless the district court tells us what it would have done if the un-counseled conviction had not been employed in its calculus, I believe that a remand is necessary. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(1).
APPENDIX
United States Court of Appeals
For The Eighth Circuit
No. 92-2112
United States of America, Appellee, v. Freddie Lee Thomas, Appellant.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Submitted: December 18, 1992
Filed: April 7, 1993
Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
HANSEN, Circuit Judge.
Freddie Lee Thomas was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1 sentenced Thomas to a 33-month term of imprisonment to be followed by a two-year term of supervised release and ordered him to pay a special assessment in the amount of $50.00. On appeal, Thomas challenges only his sentence. We affirm.
I.
Thomas was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The one-count indictment charged that Thomas knowingly possessed a firearm which had been transported in interstate commerce and that Thomas had previously been convicted, on two separate occasions, of burglary in the second degree. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After Thomas’s conviction, the probation officer prepared a Presentence Report (PSR). In computing Thomas’s criminal history category, .the probation officer scored several prior convictions he had acquired, including a state misdemeanor charge for carrying a concealed weapon to which Thomas had pleaded guilty and for which he had paid a $20.00 fine. Thomas was not represented by counsel in connection with this particular misdemeanor conviction. The inclusion of the misdemeanor conviction added one criminal history point to Thomas’s criminal history score.
Based on the information in the PSR, the district court determined that Thomas’s offense level was 12 and that his criminal history score was 12 resulting in a criminal history category of V. U.S.S.G. Chapter 5, Part A, Sentencing Table provides that criminal history category V is reserved for those defendants with 10, 11, or 12 criminal history points. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A, comment, (n. 3). As a result, Thomas’s applicable sentencing guideline range was 27-33 months. Thomas argues that his 33-month sentence is invalid because the sentencing court included the uncounseled misdemeanor conviction *827when calculating his criminal history category. Thomas concedes that even had the sentencing court not included the uncoun-seled misdemeanor, his criminal history score would be an 11 and his criminal history category would have remained at V, resulting in the same 27-33 month range. The implication is, however, that had the sentencing court not considered the uncounseled misdemeanor, Thomas may have received a sentence that was not at the top of the 27-33 month guideline range.
The government takes the position that Thomas’s sentence is nonreviewable. According to the government, even if the district court erroneously included the uncoun-seled misdemeanor conviction for sentencing purposes, the decision to impose a sentence at the high end of the applicable range was entirely within the discretion of the sentencing judge. Our first task, therefore, is to determine whether .Thomas’s sentence, which falls within the presumptively correct guideline range that both parties agree is applicable to his offense, is subject to appellate review.
II.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), appellate review of a sentence imposed in accordance with the sentencing guidelines is limited.2 Indeed, ‘“[a] sentence imposed within the applicable guidelines range is reviewable only if it is imposed in violation of the law or as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines.’ ” United States v. Gordon, 974 F.2d 97, 100 (8th Cir.1992) (citing United States v. Onwuemene, 933 F.2d 650, 651 (8th Cir.1991)). See also United States v. Woodrum, 959 F.2d 100 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider appeal of a sentence imposed at the top of the applicable guideline range when the defendant does not argue the sentence was imposed in violation of law or as a result of an incorrect application of the Guidelines). Thomas asserts that inclusion of an uncoun-seled misdemeanor conviction in his criminal history score violates his rights under the Sixth Amendment and thus his sentence was imposed in violation of law. As a result, Thomas presents the court with a situation in which we must examine the merits of his claim on appeal before we are able to determine whether we have jurisdiction to review his sentence. See United States v. Garcia, 919 F.2d 1478, 1480 (10th Cir.1990) (“When a defendant alleges that a sentence within the Guidelines was imposed in violation of law or as a result of an incorrect application of the Guidelines, he has invoked, prima facie, our authority to review the appeal.”).
The government urges us not to proceed even this far in Thomas’s appeal. The government asserts that, because Thomas would have been assigned the same criminal history category even if the sentencing court had not included the uncounseled misdemeanor in his criminal history category, this court cannot review Thomas’s sentence even to determine jurisdiction without improperly infringing upon the sentencing court’s discretion. While a sentencing judge may choose any sentence he or she deems proper within the range, the plain language of § 3742 requires that we review the sentence to ensure that the sentencing judge considered only those factors that neither violate the law nor result in or from a misapplication of the Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a); § 3742(e); see also United States v. Williams, — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1121, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992) (“The development of the guideline sentencing regime has not changed our view that, except to the extent specifically directed by statute, ‘it is not the role of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the sentencing court as to the appropriateness of a particular sentence.’ ”) (emphasis added) (citing Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, *828290 n. 16, 108 S.Ct. 3001, 3009 n. 16, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1989)). The fact that this court has no statutory right to know why the sentencing judge sentenced Thomas at a particular point within the applicable guideline range when the range itself spans fewer than twenty-four months, see 18 U.S.C. § 3653(e)(1), does not necessarily .mean that inclusion of a constitutionally infirm factor did not affect the judge’s decision to impose sentence at a particular point within the range.
This court has previously vacated a sentence when the district court improperly considered the defendant’s alien status when sentencing him at the top of the applicable guideline range. United States v. Onwuemene, 933 F.2d 650 (8th Cir.1991). In Onwuemene, because this court “[could not] say that the district court would.have imposed the same sentence absent this impermissible consideration,” the case was remanded for resentencing. Id. at 652. See also United States v. Gordon, 974 F.2d 97, 101 (8th Cir.1992) (appellate court may nevertheless affirm a sentence for which the guidelines were incorrectly applied or which was imposed in violation of the law if “the record indicates that the district court would have imposed the same sentence despite its erroneous view of the law”); cf. United States v. Odedina, 980 F.2d 705, 707 (11th Cir.1993) (defendant’s failure to inform the probation officer of a prior misdemeanor conviction, although con-cededly not countable in his criminal history calculation, was “material” to the extent it might have influenced the sentencing court’s decision to impose sentence at a particular point within the guideline range); United States v. Dedeker, 961 F.2d 164 (11th Cir.1992) (failure to reveal a past conviction was a “material misrepresentation” if it would tend to influence the determination of an appropriate criminal history category or an appropriate sentence within the guideline range).3 Once we determine there has been no violation of law, the sentencing court may impose sentence without interference from an appellate court. See United States v. Gordon, 974 F.2d 97, 101 (8th Cir.1992) (“[T]he district court [on remand] is free to impose any sentence within the guidelines range it deems appropriate.”).
One circuit has expressed concern that the phrase “incorrect application of the Guidelines,” if too broadly read, would include challenges to a sentence simply because the defendant considered it “too high” or “too low.” See United States v. Garcia, 919 F.2d 1478 (10th Cir.1990) (citing United States v. Colon, 884 F.2d 1550 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 998 (1989)). We agree that the phrases “incorrect application of the Guidelines” and “in violation of law” themselves must have limited meaning and not simply include “any arguable claim of error in sentencing.” Colon, 884 F.2d at 1553. Otherwise, the Congress’s attempt to place boundaries on the scope of appellate review by means of § 3742 would be rendered useless. See id. Once a sentencing court has before it only lawful factors, however, no sentence within the applicable guideline range can, by the very nature of the discretion still retained by sentencing judges, be an incorrect application of the Guidelines.
Because the Guidelines expressly provide that “[p]rior sentences, not otherwise excluded, are to be counted in the criminal history score, including uncounseled misdemeanor sentences where imprisonment was not imposed,” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment, (baekg’d), Thomas has no grounds to argue that his sentence was imposed as a result of a misapplication of the Guidelines. Whether a guideline was correctly applied, however, says nothing about that guideline’s constitutionality. Having determined that we have the authority to review Thomas’s claim that his sentence was imposed in violation of the law, we turn to the issue of whether the sentencing court violated Thomas’s Sixth Amendment rights when imposing sentence.
III.
Thomas does not argue that his conviction for the prior misdemeanor was itself consti*829tutionally invalid. Indeed, that argument has been foreclosed by Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 59 L.Ed.2d 383 (1979), in which the Supreme Court held that the triggering factor for appointment of counsel for a defendant is imposition of a prison term, not simply whether imprisonment is statutorily authorized for the given offense. No one disputes that Thomas was not imprisoned for the prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction.
Thomas nevertheless relies on Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980) (per curiam), in which the United States Supreme Court held that an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction for which the defendant was not incarcerated may not be “used under an enhanced penalty statute to convert a subsequent misdemeanor into a felony with a prison term,” id. at 222, 100 S.Ct. at 1585, to support his claim. Due to the lack of consensus for a single concurring rationale, however, Baldasar has offered little guidance on the issue Thomas raises. Baldasar, a per curiam opinion, contained three concurrences and one dissent and resulted in a five-justice agreement in result only. One of the concurrences, written by Justice Marshall and joined by two other justices, suggests that any use of a prior uncounseled misdemeanor to enhance a sentence would be unconstitutional. See United States v. Eckford, 910 F.2d 216, 219 (5th Cir.1990). Justice Blackmun’s separate concurrence, which provided the fifth vote for the majority, offered a very different rationale. Relying on his dissent in Scott, Justice Blackmun considered the prior misdemeanor itself unconstitutional because it was punishable by greater than six months and therefore its later use at a subsequent sentencing was unconstitutional as well. The result has been that “[t]he inconsistency between Justice Blackmun’s narrow approach and Justice Marshall’s expansive approach has clouded the scope of the Baldasar decision.” Eckford, 910 F.2d at 219.
Nevertheless, the circuits that have addressed the issue have concluded that consideration of a prior uncounseled misdemeanor at the time of a subsequent sentencing is constitutional. See United States v. Nichols, 979 F.2d 402 (6th Cir.1992) (uncounseled DUI conviction was constitutionally valid and therefore could be considered to calculate criminal history score); United States v. Castro-Vega, 945 F.2d 496, 500 (2d Cir.1991) (appellate court declines to apply Baldasar because the uncounseled misdemeanor conviction was used simply “to determine the appropriate criminal history category for a crime that was already a felony”); Eckford, 910 F.2d at 220 (holding that Baldasar “does not preclude the use of uncounseled misdemeanor convictions during sentencing for a subsequent criminal offense”) (footnote omitted); cf. Black v. State of Fla., 935 F.2d 206, 208 (11th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (Baldasar does not preclude a state from enhancing a defendant’s conviction “based on a prior, un-counseled misdemeanor conviction for which he served no time in prison.”).
We agree that a sentencing court may consider prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions, themselves constitutional, when calculating a sentence without violating the defendant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment. We find an important distinction between the factual scenario in Baldasar and the case currently before us. In Baldasar, use of the uncounseled misdemeanor resulted in the defendant being subjected to a sentence that otherwise would not have been permitted under the law, as his misdemeanor charge of theft would have been turned into a felony offense. In Thomas’s situation, on the other hand, inclusion of the prior misdemeanor did not change the nature of the offense or the maximum term of imprisonment allowed by law. See Castro-Vega, 945 F.2d at 500 (“In Baldasar, the defendant’s prior conviction materially altered the substantive offense for which he could be held criminally responsible by converting it from a misdemeanor to a felony with a prison term — an offense that on its own would trigger a right to counsel.”); Nichols, 979 F.2d at 416 (sentence up to life imprisonment authorized by statute whether the sentencing court considered the prior uncounseled misdemeanor or not) (footnote omitted). Indeed, it did not even change the presumptively correct guideline range of 27-33 months. Under the facts *830of this case, we hold that Thomas’s sentence is constitutionally valid.4
IV.
We hold that the district court did not violate Thomas’s Sixth Amendment rights when it included his uncounseled misdemean- or conviction in his criminal history category. As a result, we have no authority to review Thomas’s sentence further. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

. The Honorable Edward L. Filippine, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the East-em District of Missouri.

. According to § 3742, a defendant may appeal a sentence only if that sentence:
(1) was imposed in violation of the law;
(2) was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the sentencing guidelines; or
(3) is greater than the sentence specified in the applicable guideline range to the extent that the sentence includes a greater fine or term of imprisonment, probation, or supervised release than the maximum established in the guideline range ...; or
(4)was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable.
18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

. In addition, to assume that sentencing judges, applying their firsthand knowledge and seasoned experience, would impose the same sentence regardless of how much or what type of information they had before them belittles the value of the very discretion to which we are urged to defer.

. The dissent expresses the view that this holding is contrary to a recent opinion by another panel, United States v. Norquay, 987 F.2d 475 (8th Cir.1993). We respectfully disagree. We find Nor-quay distinguishable. The sentence at issue in Norquay resulted from an upward departure based on uncounseled trial misdemeanor convictions. As we point out, the use of Thomas's prior tmcounseled conviction had no effect on the calculation of the Guideline range within which the district court sentenced him. In addition, we do not read the holding in Norquay as broadly nor to be the same as the dissent does.