Preserve This! SCOTUS to decide whether crime that can be committed recklessly can qualify as a “violent felony” under ACCA

Today, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Walker v United States, out of the Sixth Circuit, to decide whether a criminal offense that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness can qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e).

As the petition for certiorari explains, there is a deep and widely recognized conflict in the courts of appeals over that question.

The Tenth Circuit takes the view, like the Sixth Circuit, that offenses that can be committed recklessly can nevertheless qualify as violent felonies under ACCA’s force clause. See, e.g., United States v Hammons (for purposes of determining whether an offense constitutes a valid ACCA predicate, “it makes no difference whether the person applying the force had the specific intention of causing harm or instead merely acted recklessly”).

Make sure to preserve this issue!

Preserve This! Gorsuch and Sotomayor Express Interest in Applying Apprendi to Restitution Orders

Hester v. United States, an opinion by Justice Gorsuch (joined by Justice Sotomayor), flags an issue that defense counsel should be preserving in appropriate cases. Certiorari was denied in Hester, but the issue may attract enough votes for a grant of certiorari in the future.

The question presented in Hester was whether Apprendi v. New Jersey applies to restitution orders. Apprendi requires that a jury find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that increases the maximum sentence for an offense. Mr. Hester maintained that Apprendi required a jury to find the facts supporting the amount of restitution that was ordered for his offense. The circuits, including the Tenth Circuit, have uniformly rejected this argument. The Supreme Court declined to review the issue in Hester, but Justices Gorsuch and Sotomayor dissented from the denial of certiorari.

Justices Gorsuch and Sotomayor not only opined that the issue was worthy of the Court’s consideration; they strongly suggested a view on the merits: that Apprendi should, indeed, apply to restitution orders. They reasoned that “the statutory maximum for restitution is usually zero, because a court can’t award any restitution without finding additional facts about the victim’s loss. And just as a jury must find any facts necessary to authorize a steeper prison sentence or fine, it would seem to follow that a jury must find any facts necessary to support a (nonzero) restitution order.”

Justices Gorsuch and Sotomayor rejected the government’s assertion that restitution “isn’t a criminal penalty, only a civil remedy” as follows: “[T]he Sixth Amendment’s jury trial right expressly applies ‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions,’ and the government concedes that ‘restitution is imposed as part of a defendant’s criminal conviction. Federal statutes, too, describe restitution as a ‘penalty’ imposed on the defendant as a part of his criminal sentence, as do our cases.” As a coup de grâce, Justices Gorsuch and Sotomayor then invoked the Seventh Amendment: “Besides, if restitution really fell beyond the reach of the Sixth Amendment’s protections in criminal prosecutions, we would then have to consider the Seventh Amendment and its independent protection of the right to jury trial in civil cases.”

Equally telling about the merits of the government’s argument against applying Apprendi to restitution is Justice Alito’s opinion concurring in the denial of certiorari. He does not defend the lower courts’ interpretation of Apprendi but, instead, suggests Apprendi should be overruled.

Takeaways 

  • In cases where the applicability or amount of restitution is disputed, preserve an argument that Apprendi requires that the applicability and amount of restitution be determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. You can preserve the argument by filing a written objection to the PSR’s recommendation that restitution be ordered and by raising the argument again at the sentencing hearing.
  • Don’t be deterred from preserving a sound argument just because the circuits have uniformly rejected it. The circuits can be (and have been) uniformly wrong!

 

 

News You Can Use: SCOTUS considers eliminating the “separate sovereigns” double jeopardy exception

This week, the Supreme Court hears argument in Gamble v. United States, a case asking whether the Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause. Gamble has significant practical implications, but also raises interesting issues of constitutional interpretation, historical practice, and adherence to precedent.

Following a 2015 traffic stop in which police found a gun, the state of Alabama prosecuted Mr. Gamble for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison. But the federal government then pursued its own case against him for the same crime (being a felon in possession of a firearm), and based on the same conduct (possessing the firearm found during the traffic stop).

While the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits any person from being tried twice for the same offense, the Supreme Court has long recognized an exception to that principle. Prosecution in federal and state court for the same conduct does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because the state and federal governments are considered separate sovereigns. See Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 195 (1959).

This “separate sovereigns” exception (also called the “dual sovereignty” exception) would seem to countenance both prosecutions of Mr. Gamble. That’s what the Southern District of Alabama and the Eleventh Circuit both held below. As the circuit court put it, “unless and until the Supreme Court overturns Abbate, [this type of] double jeopardy claim must fail based on the dual sovereignty doctrine.” 694 F. App’x at 750-51.

But Mr. Gamble had an opening to argue for that very overruling. Two terms ago, in Puerto Rico v Sanchez Valle, the Supreme Court held that Puerto Rico was not a separate sovereign from the United States because it derived its authority from Congress. So, Puerto Rico and the United States could not both prosecute a person for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws.

Notable here, however, was Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence, joined by Justice Thomas, in which she wrote to “flag a larger question that bears fresh examination in an appropriate case”—that is, whether the Court’s separate sovereigns doctrine served the Double Jeopardy Clause’s goal “to shield individuals from the harassment of multiple prosecutions for the same misconduct.” 136 S. Ct. 1877. The concurrence suggested it did not, and that the issue warranted the Court’s attention. 

The Court decided Sanchez-Valle on June 9, 2016.  About a week later, Mr. Gamble moved to dismiss the indictment, the motion predicated on Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence and call to revisit the separate sovereigns doctrine. Two years later, the Supreme Court granted granted certiorari.

SCOTUSblog has an excellent argument preview here: http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/argument-preview-justices-to-reconsider-potentially-far-reaching-double-jeopardy-exception/

For a fascinating historical perspective on the question, check out the amicus brief filed by law professors contending that dual sovereignty is a historical accident, and not part of the constitutional design.

 

Takeaways:

  • Be on the lookout for any dual-sovereignty issues in current cases, and preserve that challenge by filing a motion to dismiss the indictment.
  • Remember to pay attention to concurrences and dissents (including dissents from the denial of certiorari). Gamble finds its roots in Justice Ginsburg’s Sanchez-Valle concurrence. Shortly after that concurrence, Mr. Gamble moved to preserve the issue, and two years later the Court granted certiorari on the question.
  • Stare decisis is not always decisive. Even long-standing legal doctrines may be reconsidered, and Mr. Gamble argued persuasively in his petition for certiorari that both the doctrinal and factual premises supporting the separate sovereigns exception have eroded significantly since its adoption. (See Petition at 7-17.)

 

 

News You Can Use: SCOTUS grants cert in Haymond — why that might matter to your clients facing revocation of supervised release in the Tenth Circuit

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in United States v. Haymond, in which the Tenth Circuit struck down as unconstitutional 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k)’s provision requiring a mandatory minimum of five years of imprisonment following revocation of supervised release based on certain sex crimes.

Generally, a defendant faces a supervised release term of no more than 5 years, and upon revocation for a violation, a term of imprisonment of no more than 5 years. That’s where the underlying offense of conviction is a class A felony. The potential penalties are progressively less severe for less serious offenses.

However, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) carves out a special, and especially extreme, exception for certain sex offenses and revocations based on the commission of new sex offenses—a supervised release term of 5 years to life, and upon revocation, a term of imprisonment of 5 years to life. So, what is usually the ceiling (a 5-year max for class A felonies) becomes the floor (a mandatory minimum of 5 years for certain sex offenses).

In Haymond, the Tenth Circuit held that the mandatory minimum of five years of imprisonment is unconstitutional because it changes the mandatory sentencing range based on a court’s finding by a preponderance of the evidence, instead of a jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt.

In so holding, the Court primarily relied on a trio of Supreme Court cases: (1) Apprendi, which held that any fact that increases the stat max must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) Alleyne, which applied Apprendi to mandatory minimums; and (3) Booker, which extended the substance of these 6th Amendment principals to the sentencing context.

The government petitioned for certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted it, even though the Tenth Circuit is the only court to have even considered the issue (so, no circuit split; the government’s pitch was error correction on a “significant and recurring question of federal law”), and § 3583(k) does not appear to be a frequently invoked statute. That might not bode well for Haymond’s survival.

Takeaway: If you have a client facing revocation based on § 3583(k), or want to make an argument based on an extension of Haymond, move quickly. Do not let the government stay the proceedings pending resolution of Haymond in the Supreme Court. See Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[O]nce a federal circuit court issues a decision, the district courts within that circuit are bound to follow it and have no authority to await a ruling by the Supreme Court before applying the circuit court’s decision as binding authority . . . .”).