Case o' The Week: Don't Devalue Lira - Apprendi and Mandatory Minimums
For over a decade we’ve waited for Apprendi to apply to facts that trigger mandatory minimum
sentences in the Ninth.
Wait’s over. United States v. Lira, 2013 WL 3958250
(9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2013), decision available here.
Players:
Decision by Judge Christen, joined
by Judges Tashima and M. Smith.
The Hon. Judge Morgan Christen |
Facts: Joseph Lira went to trial on
charges that he used or carried firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking
offense, in violation of 18 USC § 924(c). Id.
at *1. Discharging a gun in in
relation to, or in furtherance of a drug crime carries a ten-year mandatory
minimum sentence. Counts 1-3 were drug charges, Count 4 was the § 924(c) count,
and Count 5 was (apparently) a § 922(g)(1) charge. Id. Lira was convicted of the drug charges, acquitted of the §
922(g), and convicted by the jury of Count 4: the § 924(c) count. Id. At sentencing, Lira got 262 months
on the drugs counts, plus ten years for
the mandatory minimum § 924(c) count. Id.
The district court imposed the ten year sentence “based on a fact found by the
district court by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (Specifically, the fact that the gun was discharged “during and
in relation to or in furtherance” of a drug trafficking offense.). Id. Lira appealed the § 924(c) sentence
on grounds not relevant to the holding. At the time of sentencing, Harris, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) was the
controlling law. Id. In Harris, the Supreme Court “held that
whether a defendant discharged a firearm under § 924(c)(1)(A) is a sentencing
element that may be found by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.
Issue(s): Whither Harris and the Ninth’s Harris
line after Alleyne?
Held: “[T]he rule in Harris
was reconsidered in Alleyne v. United
States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) . . . and overruled. Alleyne held that facts that increase mandatory minimum sentences
must be submitted to the jury and established beyond a reasonable doubt . . .
[T]he sentence on Count IV must be vacated.”
Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
Of Note: There is much to unpack from this
brief little opinion. Note that the decision doesn’t mention whether the element of discharging a gun was alleged
in the indictment and necessarily found by the grand jury. That’s a real
factual question in this case, because only one of four witnesses offered admissible
evidence that Lira actually discharged the gun. Id. Alleyne is thought of
as a petit jury case, but think about Alleyne
challenges to the indictment before
trial (and in Rule 29 motions): we’ll have a little window to exploit where
AUSAs will forget to allege elements creating mandatory minimum sentences in
indictments.
How to
Use: Drugs. Alleyne is a Section 924(c) case, but it is Section 841 (drug)
mand-mins that plague the most number of cases. Does Alleyne change the Ninth’s law on drugs and mandatory minimums? This
question has probably occurred to one of the panelists on Lira: Judge Tashima.
More than a decade ago, Judge Tashima was
deeply involved in the fierce litigation over drug amounts as elements of the offense after Apprendi. That litigation ended in 2002
in the bitterly disappointing Buckland
en banc decision. 289 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc). In 2004, Judge Tashma
wrote United States v. Thomas, 355
F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2004). In Thomas,
Judge Tashima tweaked the Buckland en
banc victors a bit . Judge Tashima explained that because drug quantities were
not separate elements according to Buckland, a defendant didn’t have to
admit drug quantity at a plea. Id. at
1197 (“Thus, even where due process requires that a drug quantity allegation be
pleaded in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, a
defendant can plead guilty to the elements of the offense without admitting the
drug quantity allegation.”)
Does Alleyne
now nullify Thomas? Let’s find out –run
a Thomas plea without admitting drug
weight with your friendly local AUSA. When the AUSA balks, and frets to the
judge that drug weight is an element
after Alleyne, use that transcript
for your next Section 841 trial.
For
Further Reading: Seth Waxman
was the United States’ 41st Solicitor General. He has strong views
on the cuts now devastating the federal defender system. Sequestration, he
explains, threatens “to eviscerate this lauded [federal defender] program.” “This
is not justice,” Mr. Waxman opines. For Mr. Waxman’s compelling editorial,
visit the Baltimore Sun here.
Image of Judge Christen from http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7229/7337074222_6c965a98d4_z.jpg
Steven Kalar, Federal Public Defender. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
Labels: Apprendi, Christen, Mandatory-minimum sentences, Section 924(c), Sentencing, Tashima
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home