Court Opinion

ID: 9959104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 17:01:16.379728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:27.339373
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-2118        Document: 010111029828     Date Filed: 04/10/2024    Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                            April 10, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                           Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                               Clerk of Court
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

       Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.                                                          No. 23-2118
                                                   (D.C. No. 1:23-CR-00212-MV-1)
 DAROLD ZUNIEFEATHERS,                                        (D. N.M.)

       Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       Defendant Darold Zuniefeathers directly appeals the district court’s denial of his

 motion to dismiss his indictment for violating the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy

 Clause. Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California and a

 motion for leave to withdraw from this appeal. 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Defendant and the

 government elected not to respond. Upon review of the record, we agree with defense

 *
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-2118   Document: 010111029828          Date Filed: 04/10/2024   Page: 2

 counsel that there are no non-frivolous grounds for this appeal.       Accordingly, we

 GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS this appeal.

       Before his indictment for the instant offenses of conviction, Defendant pleaded

 guilty to one count of Involuntary Manslaughter in 2017.             The district court

 sentenced Defendant to 30 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of

 supervised release. Between May 2020 and February 2023, the district court revoked

 Defendant’s supervised release four times. Defendant’s third revocation was based

 on his violation of two conditions of supervision: failure to work full time and

 unlawful use of a controlled substance. The violation report referenced an alleged

 assault by Defendant in 2021 in the Zuni Pueblo, but the assault did not serve as a

 basis for Defendant’s revocation. Defendant’s fourth revocation petition cited three

 violations: (1) failure to report his change in residence to his probation officer; (2)

 failure to attend required substance abuse treatment; and (3) commission of another

 crime based on a criminal complaint filed against Defendant in 2022 in the Zuni

 Tribal Court for aggravated assault and escape. The Government declined to proceed

 on the third ground for revocation, and Defendant’s judgment was instead based only

 on his admission to the first two violations. The district court did, however, consider

 the alleged criminal charges in fashioning a sentence.

       One week later, a federal grand jury indicted Defendant in the instant case on

 three counts of assault in Indian Country. The first count is based on the 2021 Zuni

 Pueblo assault referenced in Defendant’s third revocation violation report. The third

 count is based on the 2022 Zuni Pueblo assault that is cited as a violation in

                                           2
Appellate Case: 23-2118     Document: 010111029828      Date Filed: 04/10/2024      Page: 3

 Defendant’s fourth revocation petition. One month after his indictment, in March

 2023, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. He argued it

 was constitutionally impermissible for the Government to charge him with two

 felony assaults in the indictment when he was already punished for the same offense

 conduct in the form of incarceration following his third and fourth supervised release

 violations.

       The district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion. First, the district

 court correctly concluded Defendant’s argument is foreclosed by the Supreme

 Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, which held postrevocation penalties are

 to be treated as punishments for the initial offense of conviction to avoid potential

 double jeopardy issues.     529 U.S. 694, 700-01 (2000).      As the Supreme Court

 explained,

       [w]here the acts of violation are criminal in their own right, they may be
       the basis for separate prosecution, which would raise an issue of double
       jeopardy if the revocation of supervised release were also punishment
       for the same offense. Treating postrevocation sanctions as part of the
       penalty for the initial offense, however (as most courts have done),
       avoids these difficulties.

 Id. (citations omitted).   Second, the district court properly rejected as factually

 incorrect Defendant’s claim that his indictment nevertheless violated double jeopardy

 because his total sentence—that is, his initial sentence combined with his

 postrevocation sentences—exceeded the initial offense’s statutory maximum.

 Indeed, Defendant’s total sentence of 53 months is well below the statutory

                                           3
Appellate Case: 23-2118   Document: 010111029828        Date Filed: 04/10/2024   Page: 4

 maximum of 96 months for an involuntary manslaughter conviction under 18 U.S.C.

 § 1112.1 We see no grounds for disturbing the district court’s conclusions.

                                          ***

       We agree with counsel that there is no nonfrivolous basis upon which Defendant

 can challenge the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss. Accordingly,

 Defendant’s appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED

 and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Bobby R. Baldock
                                            Circuit Judge

 1
   Defendant was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment for his initial Involuntary
 Manslaughter conviction, 2 months for his first revocation, 6 months for his second
 revocation, 9 months for his third revocation, and 6 months for his fourth revocation,
 for a total of 53 months’ imprisonment. See App. Vol. I at 2, 29-30; App. Vol. IV at
 44.

                                           4