Court Opinion

ID: 9481147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:09:39.790711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:07.779254
License: Public Domain

EBEL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I would reverse the decision of the District Court to depart upward, and accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 “Prior sentences imposed in related cases are to be treated as one sentence for purposes of the criminal history.” Note 3 to the Commentary for that section provides that:
“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.” [Emphasis added].
It is undisputed here that appellant’s three prior convictions — Larceny by Fraud (Ditch Witch Tractor and Trailer), Larceny by Fraud (Two Cement Mixers), and Knowingly Concealing Stolen Property (pertaining to a backhoe) — were consolidated for trial and sentencing. Thus, they fall within the explicit and literal definition of “related cases” which are to be treated as a single sentence for purposes of criminal history calculations.
The District Court chose to depart by treating each of these three convictions separately for purposes of computing criminal history points. This had a dramatic effect of increasing the sentence appellant received for his current conviction from a range of 41-51 months to 71 months. Although the court found that treating these three prior convictions as “related cases” would not adequately reflect the seriousness of appellant’s past criminal conduct, the court offered no reasons, nor are any apparent to me, why that is so.
If ever there was a heartland case where prior offenses should be considered related, it is this case. Not only do appellant’s three prior convictions squarely meet the third definition of related cases provided in the commentary notes, but they also come very close to meeting the first two alternative definitions as well. All three offenses for which appellant was convicted occurred within less than a three week time span. Although they did not technically occur on “a single occasion, they were closely related from a temporal point of view.
And, at least two of the offenses shared a common set of facts involving renting a piece of construction equipment and then converting it to appellant’s own use. The third offense, concealing stolen property, was also similar because it involved concealing a previously stolen piece of construction equipment. Further, the crimes also involved a common third party. Whether or not they were technically part of a common scheme or plan, the facts of each crime are similar, the method of operation the same, and the nature of each *1073charged offense was either identical or similar to the other offenses.
Appellant was arrested for all three crimes at the same time, convicted and sentenced for all three crimes at the same time, and given a consolidated sentence for all three crimes.
Departures should rarely occur, U.S.S.G. Ch. 1, Pt. A, Intro, comment, at 1.5-6, and should occur only when the facts are clearly outside the “heartland” contemplated by the guidelines. Nothing about the consolidation of appellant’s three prior convictions is atypical, and it seems to me to be a heartland example of what the guidelines intended to be treated as “related.” Accordingly, in my judgment, it was improper for the District Court to decline to so treat them.