Court Opinion

ID: 9497322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:48:43.33193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:07.876501
License: Public Domain

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur only because I believe we are bound by our recent en banc decision in Ellis v. United, States Dist. Court, 356 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc), to conclude that the district judge accepted Patterson’s plea and that jeopardy attached at that point in time. Under United States v. Thomas, 355 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir.2004), and United States v. Banuelos, 322 F.3d 700 (9th Cir.2003), we must remand this case for resentencing based on an indeterminate amount of marijuana.
I write separately because of the unfortunate result our precedents dictate in this recidivist case. Unlike Thomas, in which the sentencing court failed to examine the facts supporting the quantity of drugs and instead borrowed the quantity alleged in the indictment, 355 F.3d at 1198-1202, this is a case where both parties had a full opportunity to present evidence of drug quantity to a jury, which found a substantial amount of marijuana grown by the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike Banuelos, in which the defendant did not waive his right to have a jury determine quantity, 322 F.3d at 703, this is a case where the defendant knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty, fully expecting that he would be sentenced based upon whatever amount of marijuana the district court would later determine. And unlike Ellis, in which the court improperly “inject[ed] itself into the charging decision by vacating the plea and requiring [the defendant] to plead to higher charges[,]” 356 F.3d at 1203, this is a case where the learned district judge, operating in the unsettled wake of Apprendi, tried to craft a fair solution that would scrupulously honor the defendant’s right to have a jury determine all the relevant aspects of his crime and punishment.
It is unfortunate that Ellis, Banuelos, and Thomas — cases that bear enough technical similarity to this case to command their application here, but that bear no resemblance at all in spirit — require the district court on remand to blind itself to the jury’s findings on drug quantity and sentence the defendant more leniently based solely on conviction for an unspecified amount of marijuana. Not even Patterson himself could have contemplated this windfall when he pled guilty, fully expecting that the disputed quantity of marijuana would be determined at sentencing.
When the law produces a result that is technically correct but is neither fair nor just, it is time to change the law. Because only another en banc panel or the Supreme Court can see that justice is done here in light of existing Ninth Circuit authority, I reluctantly concur in the disposition.