Court Opinion

ID: 9461292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:10:47.267168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:59.280798
License: Public Domain

SWYGERT, Chief Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In my opinion the trial judge erred in receiving testimony relating to the armed robbery charge and, despite his avowal that he was not considering the guilt or innocence of the defendant with respect to the armed robbery, the testimony nonetheless could only have influenced his judgment in fashioning the ten year prison sentence pronounced against the defendant.
Section 201(d) of the National Firearms Act, under which the defendant was indicted, provides “It shall be unlawful for any person . . . (d) to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms and Transfer Record.” The offense is limited to receipt or possession of an unregistered firearm. The statute is intended to regulate firearms and is not concerned with their use. There is a separate statutory provision relating to the use of a firearm to commit a felony. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
The record is clear that the trial judge wanted to hear evidence with respect to whether the defendant had used the gun in the armed robbery although he did say he would not take into consideration whether the defendant might be guilty or innocent of the robbery. While it is true that a sentencing judge has wide discretion in considering relevant data, it cannot be challenged that the sentence is imposed only with respect to the crime for which the defendant stands convicted. The other factors considered by the judge are relevant only in so far as they may aid him in determining what is the appropriate punishment for the specific violation. A practice cannot be condoned, however well intended, of convicting a person on one charge and then sentencing him additionally for another uncharged crime which happens to involve the same circumstances. Obviously, the use to which the gun here was put might be relevant in determining how “bad a person” the defendant is. But his sentence is not for being a “bad person”; it is for violation of a particular law.
The trial judge, in my judgment, confused two distinct aspects of sentencing. The prime consideration in imposing a sentence should be the seriousness of the offense actually committed. Other factors are then considered for the purpose of determining what degree of punishment is necessary for the individual person. The judge assumed that the prior use of the gun was relevant to the question of seriousness of the offense. It was not. The statute prohibits only the possession of unregistered weapons. The seriousness of an offense under the statute is dependent upon the number and kind of weapons illegally possessed, not on what their use may have been. Their use is only related to the secondary question concerning the individual defendant’s character and history.
The distinction is important in the instant case. The majority permits the abbreviated hearing only because it relates to the seriousness of the offense. Even assuming that there may be a second crime which is relevant to the seriousness of an offense for which there is a conviction, this is clearly not true in the instant case. The majority’s attempt to limit the opinion to “related” charges is grounded on fallacious reasoning. Since this armed robbery has no relevance to the issue of possession, I can see no analytical basis on which to *832distinguish the present case from a situation in which a pending charge on which a hearing is held is for a crime not even involving this particular weapon. The logic of the opinion would allow a hearing on all pending charges.
Thus, this case actually presents one of the questions raised but not answered in our recent opinion in United States v. Haygood, 502 F.2d 166 (7th Cir. 1974): Is it error for a sentencing judge to consider the facts underlying a separate charge pending against a defendant ?1 I believe it is error. I would favor a policy that totally prohibits the consideration of mere arrests or pending charges in reaching a sentencing conclusion.2 Surely, we should not countenance the practice employed in this case. Here the trial judge specified his interest in the pending robbery charge. Indeed, he held a hearing in order to reach a tentative conclusion concerning the factual basis for the robbery charge. While the sentencing judge’s desire to avoid predicating the sentence on the basis of an unproven charge is perhaps understandable, I do not agree that the solution is to hold a hearing on the matter. Instead, the charge should be totally ignored in view of the law’s presumption of innocence. To do otherwise is to infringe upon the basic rights and safeguards we provide a defendant in a criminal case. A defendant is entitled to a jury determination if he so desires. We should not permit a procedure that could result in allowing a judge’s broad sentencing discretion to be used by prosecutors as a means for increasing a defendant’s sentence on the basis of a factual determination as to other alleged criminal activity for which a jury conviction might not be possible. Such a procedure cannot be condoned.
I would remand for resentencing.

. In the context of this case I believe we are presented with this question even though a specific objection to the hearing was not made. Unlike Haygood, we are confronted with a situation in which the pending charge was in state court. Thus, there could have been no hope by the defendant that if the federal judge considered the facts of this other charge, the state prosecutor would not pursue it. Moreover, here we have the direct appeal as opposed to what was in Hay-good primarily a double jeopardy claim raised as a bar to the prosecution of the second charge.

. I recognize that present authority may permit a sentencing judge to consider hearsay statements even when they relate to other criminal activity for which there has not been a conviction. See Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1760 (1949) ; 18 U.S.C. § 3577. See also United States v. Haygood, 502 F.2d 166, 171 n. 16 (7th Cir. 1974). It should be noted, however, that in Williams the defendant did not challenge the contention that he had committed these other crimes. The specific question of use of prior arrests or pending charges was not addressed in Williams and I believe the case should be strictly limited to its facts.