united states v. herrerra pena, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Herrerra Pena, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/28

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2289

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

MAXI MO LARYI HERRERRA PENA,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Nat hani el M. Gor t on, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,St ahl and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Rober t L. Sheket of f f or appel l ant .J enni f er Hay Zacks , Assi st ant U. S. At t or ney, wi t h whomCar men

M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

Febr uary 5, 2014


2/28

LYNCH, Chief Judge. I n f eder al pr osecut i ons, under t he

r equi r ement s of Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct . 2151, 2158

( 2013) , i f t he di st r i but i on of dr ugs i s pr oven beyond a r easonabl e

doubt t o a j ur y to have r esul t ed i n a deat h, a def endant wi l l f ace

a 20- year mandat ory mi ni mumsent ence. See 21 U. S. C. 841( b) . But

i f t he gover nment does not meet t hat bur den bef ore convi ct i on, a

def endant wi l l f ace a di f f er ent mandat or y mi ni mum - - ei t her 10

years, 5 years, or no mi ni mum, dependi ng on t he drug t ype and

quant i t y. See 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( A) , ( B) , ( C) . When, as her e,

t her e i s Al l eyne er r or r esul t i ng i n t he i mposi t i on of a mandat or y

mi ni mumsent ence based on j udi ci al f i ndi ngs on a l esser st andar d of

pr oof , t he ci r cui t cour t s usual l y have mer el y r emanded f or

r esent enci ng by t he di st r i ct cour t s.

The prosecut i on here asks us t o depar t f r om t hat usual

pr act i ce. We ar e asked, af t er an Al l eyne er r or and f ol l owi ng a

convi ct i on based on a st r ai ght gui l t y pl ea to dr ug deal i ng but not

t o "deat h r esul t i ng, " t o per mi t t he pr osecut i on on r emand t o

empanel a sent enci ng j ury t o al l ow t he gover nment t o now prove

beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat a deat h r esul t ed f r om t he

def endant ' s dr ug deal i ng. Because Al l eyne was deci ded af t er

sent enci ng and whi l e t he case was on appeal , t he si t uat i on i n t hi s

case wi l l not f r equent l y occur . We hol d t hat t he gover nment ' s

pr oposed cour se of act i on i s f or ecl osed on t he f act s of t hi s case,

- 2-


3/28

i s unf ai r , and woul d r ai se t r oubl i ng const i t ut i onal quest i ons t hat

can be avoi ded by denyi ng t he gover nment ' s r equest .

I .

Def endant Maxi mo Laryi Herr err a Pena was a co- l eader ,

al ong wi t h J oel Li ceaga, of a her oi n t r af f i cki ng r i ng t hat oper at ed

i n Bost on and t he Sout h Shore of Massachuset t s. I n 2009- 2010, Pena

was di r ect l y l i nked t o dr ug t r ansact i ons i nvol vi ng a t ot al of mor e

t han 1. 6 ki l ogr ams of her oi n.

On J ul y 30, 2009, Pena' s organi zat i on sol d her oi n t o

J oshua J ohnson and Davi d Geof f r i on, l eader s of a heroi n

di st r i but i on busi ness on Cape Cod. Lat er t hat day, J ohnson and

Geof f r i on sol d a bag of her oi n t o Chel sea J osl i n, a 20- year - ol d,

f or $50. The gover nment argues t hat t he bag of her oi n Geof f r i on

sol d t o J osl i n came f r om t he her oi n bought f r om Pena' s

organi zat i on. The next day, J osl i n was f ound dead i n her Cape Cod

home, wi t h a needl e, a syr i nge, and a pl ast i c baggi e wi t h her oi n

r esi due near by. J osl i n had al so been dr i nki ng and was t aki ng a

pr escr i pt i on dr ug, and aut opsy r esul t s showed t he pr esence of al l

t hr ee subst ances i n her bl ood.

Pena was i ndi ct ed on December 23, 2010, al ong wi t h

Li ceaga, Geof f r i on, and Vi ct or Manon, a dr ug r unner f r om Pena and

Li ceaga' s or gani zat i on. The i ndi ct ment al l eged t wo count s: ( 1)

conspi r acy t o di st r i but e and t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e

100 gr ams or more of her oi n, and ( 2) possessi on of her oi n wi t h

- 3-


4/28

i nt ent t o di st r i but e, di st r i but i on of her oi n, and ai di ng and

abet t i ng t he same. Bot h count s al l eged vi ol at i ons of 21 U. S. C.

841( a) ( 1) , whi ch pr ohi bi t s dr ug di st r i but i on.

The i ndi ct ment f ur t her al l eged f or bot h count s t hat

"deat h and ser i ous bodi l y i nj ur y r esul t ed f r om t he use of such

subst ance" based on J osl i n' s deat h. An appr opr i at e f i ndi ng of

"deat h r esul t i ng" i ncr eases t he sent ence on each count t o a

mandat ory mi ni mum of t went y years and a maxi mum of l i f e. See 21

U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( B) , ( C) . 1

Pena i ni t i al l y pl ed not gui l t y t o bot h char ges. On

November 30, 2011, Pena f i l ed a mot i on argui ng t hat "deat h

r esul t i ng" was an el ement of t he of f enses and t hat as a r esul t , t he

di st r i ct cour t coul d not consi der t he mandat or y mi ni mum at a

sent enci ng hear i ng unl ess t he "deat h r esul t i ng" el ement was f i r st

f ound by a j ury beyond a r easonabl e doubt . The gover nment opposed

t he mot i on, ar gui ng t hat "deat h r esul t i ng" was a not a necessar y

el ement of t he i ndi ct ment but a sent enci ng f act or , whi ch coul d

pr oper l y be det er mi ned at sent enci ng by t he cour t on a

pr eponderance of t he evi dence st andard. The government ' s choi ce

was sur el y del i ber at e: i t want ed t o show "deat h r esul t i ng" under a

1 Count 1 ci t ed 21 U. S. C. 841( b) ( 1) ( B) , whi ch or di nar i l ycar r i es a mandatory mi ni mum of f i ve years and a maxi mum of f or t yyear s, whi l e Count 2 ci t ed 841( b) ( 1) ( C) , whi ch or di nar i l y has nomi ni mum and a maxi mum of t went y years. So, wi t hout any "deat hr esul t i ng" al l egat i ons, t her e woul d be no 20- year mandatory mi ni mumon ei t her char ge.

- 4-


5/28

f ar easi er st andar d of pr oof and t o pr ove i t t o a j udge, not a

j ury. 2

The day af t er t he gover nment f i l ed i t s opposi t i on, Pena

f i l ed a r esponse. Pena' s r esponse st at ed:

The def endant cont i nues t o mai nt ai n t hatpuni shment based on a "deat h r esul t i ng"f i ndi ng must be pr emi sed on a j ur y convi ct i onof t hi s el ement on pr oof beyond a r easonabl edoubt . However , t he def endant i s wi l l i ng t oaccept t he gover nment ' s posi t i on t hat t heSuper sedi ng I ndi ct ment does not i ncl ude "deathr esul t i ng" as an el ement . Gi ven t hat vi ew oft he Super sedi ng I ndi ct ment , t he def endant i spr epar ed t o pl ead gui l t y t o bot h count sf or t hwi t h and r equest s t hat t he Cour t schedul ea change of pl ea hear i ng.

( emphasi s added) . The r esponse was expl i ci t t hat t he pl ea was

bei ng ent er ed i n r el i ance on t he pr osecut i on' s posi t i on t hat "deat h

r esul t i ng" was not an el ement of t he of f ense. Ther e was no pl ea

agr eement wi t h t he pr osecut i on. Nor was t here ever any order or

agr eement t o bi f ur cate t he pr oceedi ngs.The di st r i ct cour t schedul ed a change of pl ea hear i ng,

whi ch began on J anuary 27, 2012. Af t er a cont i nuance, t he hear i ng

was concl uded on Febr uary 9, 2012. At t he hear i ng, Pena admi t t ed

al l of t he f act s r el evant t o each count ot her t han t he "deat h

r esul t i ng" al l egat i ons. As t o Count 2, Pena admi t t ed onl y t hat he

assi st ed i n or ar r anged f or t he suppl y of her oi n t o J ohnson on J ul y

2 I n a f oot not e, t he gover nment di d ar gue t hat i t r et ai nedt he opt i on t o pr ove "deat h r esul t i ng" t o a j ur y i f i t want ed ahi gher maxi mum sent ence. I t di d not ar gue t hat i t r et ai ned anysuch opt i on t o i ncr ease a mi ni mum sent ence.

- 5-


6/28

30, 2009. I n Pena' s vi ew, i t was Li ceaga' s her oi n, not hi s, and he

ai ded and abet t ed Li ceaga i n get t i ng t he her oi n t o J ohnson. Pena

al so ar gued t hat t he 20- year mandat ory mi ni mum coul d not appl y

wi t hout a j ur y f i ndi ng on "deat h r esul t i ng. " The gover nment made

no obj ect i on t o accept ance of t he def endant ' s pl ea, even i n l i ght

of t he cont i nued deni al of t he "deat h r esul t i ng" al l egat i ons.

The di st r i ct cour t accept ed t he gui l t y pl ea. Pena ar gued

t hat t he gover nment ' s r epr esent at i on t hat deat h r esul t i ng was not

char ged i n the i ndi ct ment meant t hat t he gover nment had wai ved the

opport uni t y t o seek t he death- r esul t i ng enhancement . The

pr osecut i on agai n di d not seek t o reserve any r i ght t o use a

sent enci ng j ur y to i ncrease t he mi ni mum sent ence i f t he

gover nment ' s assessment t hat "death r esul t i ng" was onl y a

sent enci ng f act or pr oved i ncor r ect .

Pena al so i nf or med t he cour t t hat i f t he cour t deci ded

"deat h r esul t i ng" was a sent enci ng f act or , he woul d pr obabl y seek

t o have an evi dent i ary hear i ng and t o cr oss- exami ne wi t nesses. The

def endant ' s i ncar cer at i on cont i nued.

On May 8, 2012, i n l i ght of t he gover nment ' s posi t i on,

Pena f i l ed a mot i on r equest i ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng on t he "deat h

r esul t i ng" i ssue bef or e hi s sent enci ng hear i ng. On J ul y 18, 2012,

t he di st r i ct cour t i ssued a memor andum opi ni on r ej ect i ng Pena' s

November 30, 2011 pr e- pl ea mot i on argui ng t hat t he mandat ory

mi ni mum coul d not appl y unl ess t he "death r esul t i ng" el ement was

- 6-


7/28

t r i ed bef ore a j ur y. See Uni t ed St ates v. Pena, No. 10- 10017- NMG,

2012 WL 2952771 ( D. Mass. J ul y 18, 2012) . The cour t r ej ect ed

Pena' s ar gument , concl udi ng that "deat h resul t i ng" was a sent enci ng

f act or . I t t hen t ur ned t o Pena' s ar gument f r om hi s May 8 mot i on

and gr ant ed hi s r equest f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng.

The cour t hel d t he evi dent i ar y hear i ng on t he "deat h

r esul t i ng" i ssue on J ul y 19, 2012. Af t er exami ni ng t he wi t nesses,

Pena' s counsel r ai sed t wo pr i mar y l i nes of ar gument at t he hear i ng.

The f i r st was whether t he aut opsy by Dr . Henry Ni el ds est abl i shed

t hat her oi n act ual l y caused J osl i n' s deat h, gi ven t hat t her e wer e

quest i ons sur r oundi ng t he r el i abi l i t y ( f or chemi st r y pur poses) of

t he sour ce of t he vi ct i m' s bl ood sampl e and gi ven Dr . Ni el ds' s

t est i mony t hat he coul d not say wi t h cer t ai nt y t hat t he

pr escr i pt i on dr ug and al cohol f ound i n her syst em coul d not have

caused t he deat h even wi t hout t he heroi n. The second, devel oped

t hr ough counsel ' s cr oss- exami nat i ons, was t he cr edi bi l i t y of

J ohnson, who had an al t er nat e suppl y of heroi n and was hi msel f a

her oi n user ( and had used her oi n t he day he suppl i ed i t t o J osl i n) .

Pena chal l enged t he cr edi bi l i t y of J ohnson' s t est i mony t hat , among

ot her t hi ngs, he had not mi xed hi s her oi n f r om di f f er ent sour ces

and t hat he car r i ed over no i nvent or y of her oi n but got a f r esh

suppl y dai l y.

I n a car ef ul l y det ai l ed wr i t t en or der , t he cour t

concl uded t hat t he gover nment had pr oven by a pr eponder ance of t he

- 7-


8/28

evi dence t hat J osl i n' s deat h di d r esul t f r om Pena' s her oi n

di st r i but i on. See Uni t ed St at es v. Geof f r i on, 910 F. Supp. 2d 337,

343 ( D. Mass. 2012) . The cour t f ound t he t est i mony of Dr . Ni el ds

t o be credi bl e and t hat i t was "mor e l i kel y t han not " t hat "J osl i n

di ed f r om accut e i nt oxi cat i on by t he combi ned ef f ect s of et hanol ,

opi at es and ci t al opr am, i . e. , t hat t he her oi n used pl ayed a

si gni f i cant causal r ol e i n her deat h. " I d. at 342. 3 The cour t

al so f ound t hat t he evi dence est abl i shed by a pr eponder ance that

t he her oi n J osl i n used was or i gi nal l y suppl i ed by Pena or by ot her

member s of hi s conspi r acy. I d.

The Supreme Cour t grant ed cer t i or ar i i n Al l eyne on

Oct ober 5, 2012. The pet i t i on had been f i l ed on March 14, 2012.

The par t i es wer e awar e of t he grant of cer t i or ar i and t he

government di scussed i t at t he sent enci ng hear i ng t he next week.

On Oct ober 11, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t hel d a sent enci ng

hear i ng. 4 Based on cal cul at i ons i n t he pr esent enci ng r eport , Pena

3 Under t he Supr eme Cour t ' s r ecent deci si on i n Bur r age v.Uni t ed St at es, 134 S. Ct . ___ ( 2014) , t hi s causat i on det er mi nat i onwas i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a "deat h r esul t i ng" convi ct i on. TheCour t hel d i n Bur r age t hat t he "death r esul t i ng" enhancementr equi r es a but - f or causal r el at i onshi p bet ween t he dr ugs and t hevi ct i m' s deat h. I d. at ___ ( sl i p op. at 9) . Under Bur r age, t hedr ug use must be an "i ndependent l y suf f i ci ent cause" of t hevi cti m' s deat h. I d. The di st r i ct cour t , however , l i mi t ed i t s

f i ndi ng t o t he concl usi on t hat t he her oi n "pl ayed a si gni f i cantcausal r ol e" i n a deat h r esul t i ng f r om t he "combi ned" cockt ai l of"et hanol , opi at es and ci t al opr am. " Geof f r i on, 910 F. Supp. 2d at342.

4 Apparent l y nei t her par t y r equest ed a del ay i n sent enci ng i nl i ght of t he gr ant of cer t i or ar i i n Al l eyne.

- 8-


9/28

f aced a base of f ense l evel of 38 under t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes i f

"deat h r esul t i ng" appl i ed t o hi s convi ct i on, and a base of f ense

l evel of 32 i f " deat h r esul t i ng" was not est abl i shed. Af t er

appl yi ng r el evant i ncr eases and decr eases, t hese al t er nat i ve

of f ense l evel s produced Gui del i nes r anges of 292- 365 mont hs or 151-

188 mont hs, r espect i vel y. At t he hear i ng, Pena cont i nued t o ar gue

t hat t he hi gher r ange based on "deat h r esul t i ng" coul d not appl y

because t he "death resul t i ng" el ement had not been pr oven to a j ur y

beyond a r easonabl e doubt and hi s pl ea di d not admi t t o i t .

The cour t r ej ect ed Pena' s ar gument and, r el yi ng on i t s

f i ndi ngs, used t he hi gher Gui del i nes r ange based on "deat h

r esul t i ng. " I t appl i ed t he "deat h r esul t i ng" i ncrease t o bot h

count s, t r i gger i ng a mandatory mi ni mum of 20 years. Based on t he

hi gher Gui del i nes r ange and t he mandat ory mi ni mum, i t depar t ed

downward to a f i nal sent ence of 252 mont hs ( 21 years) f or Count 1,

t o be ser ved concur r ent l y wi t h the st atut ory maxi mumsent ence of 20

year s f or t he ai di ng and abet t i ng pl ea on Count 2. 5 The cour t

descr i bed t hi s sent ence as " l onger t han t he mandat ory mi ni mum

sent ence f or a dr ug of f ense r esul t i ng i n deat h" whi l e st i l l "about

15% bel ow t he l ow end of t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. " I t

expl ai ned t hat , "al t hough t he def endant put i n mot i on a t r agi c set

5 Because "deat h r esul t i ng" and dr ug quant i t y had not beenf ound by a j ur y on Count 2, under Appr endi v. New J ersey, 530 U. S.466 ( 2000) , t hey coul d not t r i gger an i ncr ease i n t he maxi mumsent ence. As a resul t , 20 years was bot h t he mandat ory mi ni mumandst at ut ory maxi mum sent ence f or Count 2.

- 9-


10/28

of event s t hat r esul t ed i n t he deat h of a young woman, a 21- year

sent ence i s suf f i ci ent but not gr eat er t han necessary under t hese

speci f i c ci r cumst ances. "

Dur i ng thi s sent enci ng hear i ng, t he pr osecut i on request ed

t hat , i f t he cour t i mposed a sent ence above t he mandat ory mi ni mum,

i t i ssue an al t er nat i ve hol di ng expl ai ni ng t hat i t woul d have done

so at i t s di scr et i on r egar dl ess of t he mandat or y mi ni mum based on

"death r esul t i ng. " Def ense counsel obj ect ed, sayi ng t he gover nment

had chosen i t s const i t ut i onal pat h and t he t i me t o make an upward

depar t ure ar gument woul d be at a r esent enci ng i f t he Supr eme

Cour t ' s ul t i mat e deci si on on the Si xth Amendment const i t ut i onal

i ssue wer e t o r equi r e one. The di st r i ct cour t r ecogni zed t hat t he

prosecut i on was maki ng t he r equest and engaged t he gover nment i n a

l engt hy col l oquy about i t , but ul t i mat el y decl i ned t o i ssue an

al t er nat i ve hol di ng. Pena appeal ed.

Al l eyne was deci ded on J une 17, 2013, whi l e Pena' s appeal

was pendi ng. I n Al l eyne, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat t he Si xt h

Amendment r i ght t o a j ur y r equi r es t hat any f act s whi ch woul d

i ncr ease a mandatory mi ni mumsent ence ar e "el ement [ s] of a di st i nct

and aggr avat ed cr i me" t hat must be f ound by a j ury beyond a

r easonabl e doubt . 133 S. Ct . at 2162- 63.

Pena now argues, and t he gover nment agr ees, t hat hi s

sent ence was i mposed i n vi ol at i on of Al l eyne. The par t i es agr ee

t hat t he sent ence must be vacat ed and t he case r emanded. But t hey

- 10-


11/28

have di f f erent vi ews as t o whet her on r emand a sent enci ng j ur y may

be empanel ed.

I I .

Some backgr ound on t he deci si on i n Al l eyne i s hel pf ul t o

under st and t he i ssue on appeal and the di f f er ent cl ai ms of

f ai r ness.

Al l eyne i s t he most r ecent i n a ser i es of Supr eme Cour t

sent enci ng cases concer ni ng def endant s' Si xt h Amendment r i ght s t o

t r i al by j ur y, begi nni ng i n 2000 wi t h Appr endi v. New J er sey, 530

U. S. 466 ( 2000) . I n Appr endi , t he def endant had pl ed gui l t y t o,

i nt er al i a, an of f ense car r yi ng a sent ence of f i ve t o t en year s.

I d. at 470. Af t er t he gui l t y pl ea was ent er ed, t he pr osecut i on

sought an enhancement under a hat e cr i me l aw. The di st r i ct cour t

hel d an evi dent i ary hear i ng and t he cour t det er mi ned on a

preponder ance of t he evi dence st andar d t hat t he def endant had met

t he r equi r ement s of t he hat e cr i me st at ut e. I d. at 470- 71.

Accor di ngl y, t he cour t sent enced hi m t o 12 year s' i mpr i sonment on

t hat count , t wo year s above t he or di nar y maxi mum f or t hat of f ense

wi t hout t he hat e cr i me enhancement . I d. at 471.

The Supreme Cour t r eversed i n a 5- 4 deci si on. I t

ar t i cul at ed a di st i nct i on bet ween "el ement s" of an of f ense, whi ch

t he const i t ut i onal guar ant ee of t he r i ght t o a t r i al by j ur y

r equi r es t o be f ound by a j ur y beyond a r easonabl e doubt , and

"sent enci ng f actors, " whi ch coul d be f ound by a j udge on a

- 11-


12/28

pr eponder ance st andar d. I d. at 485- 86. Ot her t han pr i or

convi ct i ons, i t hel d, "any f act t hat i ncreases t he penal t y f or a

cr i me beyond t he pr escr i bed st at ut ory maxi mum must be submi t t ed t o

a j ur y, and pr oved beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " I d. at 490

( emphasi s added) .

Two years l at er , i n Har r i s v. Uni t ed St at es, 536 U. S. 545

( 2002) , t he Cour t di st i ngui shed i ncr eases t o mandat ory mi ni mums

f r om t he i ncr eases t o sent enci ng range maxi mums i t had consi der ed

i n Appr endi . I n Har r i s, t he def endant had been convi ct ed of a dr ug

t r af f i cki ng cri me i nvol vi ng a f i r ear m. I d. at 550- 51.

"[ P] ossess[ i ng] " a f i r ear m dur i ng a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cri me woul d

t r i gger a f i ve- year mandat ory mi ni mum; t he mi ni mum woul d i ncr ease

t o seven year s f or "brandi sh[ i ng] " t he f i r ear m dur i ng t he cr i me.

I d. at 551 ( quot i ng 18 U. S. C. 924( c) ( 1) ( A) ) . Based on a f i ndi ng

on a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence st andar d, t he di st r i ct cour t

det er mi ned t hat t he def endant had br andi shed a f i r ear m and

sent enced hi m accor di ngl y. I d. I n anot her 5- 4 deci si on, t he

Supr eme Cour t af f i r med. The Cour t hel d t hat f act or s t r i gger i ng

mandat ory mi ni mums "need not be al l eged i n the i ndi ct ment ,

submi t t ed t o t he j ur y, or pr oved beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " I d.

at 568. J ust i ce Br eyer , t he f i f t h vot e i n t he maj or i t y, r ecogni zed

t hat Har r i s and Appr endi wer e not "easi l y di st i ngui sh[ abl e] " and

expl ai ned t hat he "cannot agr ee wi t h t he pl ur al i t y' s opi ni on

i nsof ar as i t f i nds such a di st i nct i on. " I d. at 569 ( Br eyer , J . ,

- 12-


13/28

concur r i ng i n part and concur r i ng i n t he j udgment ) . He went on t o

expl ai n t hat he was j oi ni ng wi t h t he pl ur al i t y because he

"cont i nue[ d] t o bel i eve" t hat Appr endi was wr ongl y deci ded, and

t hat j udges shoul d be f r ee t o go above bot h st at utory maxi mums and

mandatory mi ni mums wi t hout a j ur y f i ndi ng. I d. at 569- 70.

I n 2010, t he Cour t agai n di scussed t he di st i nct i on

bet ween sent enci ng f actors and el ement s i n Uni t ed St ates v.

O' Br i en, 560 U. S. 218 ( 2010) , i n t he cont ext of t he same f i r ear ms

pr ovi si on t hat had been at i ssue i n Har r i s. 6 O' Br i en' s unani mous

hol di ng was l i mi t ed t o t he nar r ow concl usi on t hat whet her a f i r ear m

was a machi negun - - a f act t hat det ermi ned mandat or y mi ni mums - -

was an el ement of t he of f ense. I d. at 221, 235. I n a concur r ence,

however , J ust i ce St evens observed t hat " [ t ] he unani mi t y of our

deci si on t oday does not i mpl y that McMi l l an [ v. Pennsyl vani a, 477

U. S. 79 ( 1986) , and i t s successor case Har r i s] i s saf e f r om a

di r ect chal l enge t o i t s f oundat i on. " I d. at 240 ( St evens, J . ,

concur r i ng) . He ar t i cul at ed hi s vi ew t hat t he " r el uct ant Appr endi

di ssent er " who had compl et ed t he bar e maj or i t y i n Har r i s - - t hat

i s, J ust i ce Br eyer - - "may no l onger be r el uct ant . " I d. at 239.

The di r ect chal l enge t o whi ch J ust i ce St evens r ef er r ed

ar r i ved i n Al l eyne. Ther e, t he ver di ct f or m al l owed t he j ur y t o

6 The Cour t had al so deci ded another st r and of Appr endi - basedcases i n 2004 and 2005 wi t h Bl akel y v. Washi ngt on, 542 U. S. 296( 2004) , and Uni t ed St ates v. Booker , 543 U. S. 220 ( 2005) , whi chr ender ed t he f eder al Sent enci ng Gui del i nes advi sory.

- 13-


14/28

f i nd t hat a f i r ear m had been "[ u] sed or car r i ed" or "[ b] r andi shed"

under t he same f i r ear ms pr ovi si on as Har r i s and O' Br i en. The j ur y

f ound t he def endant gui l t y of "car r [ yi ng] " a f i r ear m but decl i ned

t o make a f i ndi ng of br andi shi ng. Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . at 2155- 56.

The t r i al j udge sentenced t he def endant based on a hi gher mandat or y

mi ni mum t r i gger ed by t he j udge' s f i ndi ng by a pr eponder ance of t he

evi dence t hat t he def endant had "br andi shed" t he weapon. I d. at

2156. The Supr eme Cour t r ever sed. I n a 5- 4 deci si on, t he Cour t

hel d t hat " t he pr i nci pl e appl i ed i n Appr endi appl i es wi t h equal

f or ce t o f act s i ncr easi ng t he mandat or y mi ni mum, " over r ul i ng

Har r i s. I d. at 2160. The Cour t emphasi zed t hat t hese f act s wer e

el ement s t hat "necessar i l y f or m[ ] const i t uent par t [ s] of a new

of f ense, " or , put di f f er ent l y, wer e "el ement [ s] of a separ at e,

aggr avat ed of f ense. " I d. at 2162. As a r esul t , t he Cour t

expl ai ned, t hose aggr avat i ng f act s must "be submi t t ed t o t he j ur y

and f ound beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " I d. at 2163.

I I I .

The Al l eyne r ul e appl i es t o cases pendi ng on di r ect

appeal at t he t i me i t was deci ded. Uni t ed St at es v. Har akal y, 734

F. 3d 88, 94 n. 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . I t i s cl ear t her e was Al l eyne

er r or her e. See Bur r age v. Uni t ed St at es, 134 S. Ct . ___ , ___

( 2014) ( " [ T] he ' deat h r esul t s' enhancement . . . i s an el ement t hat

must be submi t t ed t o t he j ur y and f ound beyond a reasonabl e doubt . "

( ci t i ng Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . at 2162- 63) ) . Si nce Al l eyne er r or s ar e

- 14-


15/28

of a const i t ut i onal di mensi on and Pena' s cl ai m of er r or i s

pr eser ved, " t he government must pr ove t hat t he er r or was har ml ess

beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " Harakal y, 734 F. 3d at 95 ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Pr ez- Rui z, 353 F. 3d 1, 17 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) )

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) .

The gover nment , t o i t s cr edi t , concedes t hat t he Al l eyne

er r or her e i s not har ml ess, and r i ght l y so: wi t hout a pr oper

f i ndi ng of "deat h r esul t i ng" by a j ur y, Pena woul d have been

subj ect ed t o a l ower sent enci ng r ange. I t i s al so cl ear t hat t he

Al l eyne er r or does not vacat e the convi ct i on, est abl i shed by Pena' s

gui l t y pl ea, on t he dr ug char ges. See Uni t ed St at es v. Yej e-

Cabr er a, 430 F. 3d 1, 12- 13 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .

I V.

Ther e i s l i t t l e precedent on t he preci se quest i on

pr esent ed her e. Bot h par t i es resor t t o br oad pr i nci pl es.

Pena ar gues t hat we must r emand t he case t o t he di st r i ct

cour t f or i t t o do t he r esent enci ng, and t hat empanel i ng a

sent enci ng j ur y woul d be i mpr oper f or sever al r easons. Fi r st , Pena

argues r esent enci ng must be based on t he el ement s of t he cr i me t o

whi ch he act ual l y pl ed gui l t y. He emphasi zes t hat he di d not pl ead

t o "deat h r esul t i ng. " The pr osecut i on, he not es, di d not obj ect t o

t hi s mor e l i mi t ed pl ea, and t he cour t accept ed t he pl ea. He al so

says he r el i ed on t he gover nment ' s posi t i on i n ent er i ng t he pl ea.

Pena says t hat t he gui l t y pl ea has changed hi s pr e- pl ea si t uat i on

- 15-


16/28

i n many ways and t hat t he sent enci ng j ury pr ocedure t he gover nment

seeks woul d unf ai r l y f avor t he gover nment . At no t i me di d he agr ee

t o bi f ur cat i ng t he gui l t st age f r omt he sent enci ng pr oceedi ngs, and

t her e was no or der so bi f ur cat i ng pr oceedi ngs. I n addi t i on, i n hi s

r epl y br i ef , Pena ar gues t he gover nment ' s procedur e woul d vi ol at e

hi s Fi f t h Amendment doubl e j eopar dy r i ght s, ci t i ng Ohi o v. J ohnson,

467 U. S. 493, 501 ( 1984) . We di scuss t he doubl e j eopar dy concerns

bel ow.

The gover nment ar gues t hat f ai r ness r equi r es i t be gi ven

a chance t o t r y agai n t o pr ove "deat h r esul t i ng, " t hi s t i me t o t he

cor r ect deci si onmaker , t he j ur y - - but onl y a "sent enci ng" j ur y.

I t ar gues i t shoul d not be "penal i zed" f or maki ng the wr ong guess

on where t he Supr eme Cour t woul d come out on t hi s i ssue. I t poi nt s

out t hat "[ w] hi l e t he [ empanel i ng] of a sent enci ng j ur y i s a

somewhat unusual pr ocedur e, i t i s f ar f r om unpr ecedent ed. " I t

not es t hat t he quest i on of gui l t i s of t en bi f ur cat ed f r om t he

quest i on of cri mi nal f or f ei t ur e, ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Keene, 341

F. 3d 78, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) , and Uni t ed St at es v. DesMar ai s, 938

F. 2d 347, 349- 50 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) . Li kewi se, i t not es t hat capi t al

cases ar e r out i nel y bi f ur cat ed i nt o a gui l t phase and a sent enci ng

phase, ci t i ng Sampson v. Uni t ed St at es, 724 F. 3d 150, 168 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) .

- 16-


17/28

A.

We begi n wi t h common gr ound. A sent ence must be based

upon t he cr i me of convi ct i on. See Al l eyne, 133 S. Ct . at 2162 ( " I t

i s obvi ous, f or exampl e, t hat a def endant coul d not be convi ct ed

and sent enced f or assaul t , i f t he j ur y onl y f i nds t he f act s f or

l ar ceny . . . . ") . The onl y convi cti on her e r esul t s f r om Pena' s

gui l t y pl ea. 7 I t i s al so common gr ound t hat t he government ' s

r equest i s unusual , and t he or di nar y pr act i ce i s t o remand t o the

di st r i ct cour t f or t he j udge t o engage i n r esent enci ng. And unl i ke

wi t h capi t al cases, see 18 U. S. C. 3593( b) , t he par t i es her e have

i dent i f i ed no speci f i c st at ut or y aut hor i zat i on f or empanel i ng a

sent enci ng j ur y on r emand under t hese f act s.

The gover nment ar gues t hat i t s posi t i on on a sentenci ng

j ury i s suppor t ed by opi ni ons of t he Thi r d, Si xt h, Sevent h, and

Ni nt h Ci r cui t s, and one di st r i ct cour t , i n whi ch t hose cour t s

appr oved t he use of sent enci ng j ur i es t o r emedy sent enci ng er r ors

af t er Appr endi . The gover nment ci t es Uni t ed St at es v. Booker , 375

F. 3d 508, 514 ( 7t h Ci r . 2004) , af f ' d, 543 U. S. 220 ( 2005) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Henr y, 282 F. 3d 242, 253 ( 3d Ci r . 2002) ( convi ct i on based

on gui l t y pl ea) ; I n r e Fi guer oa, 463 F. App' x 99, 100 ( 3d Ci r .

2012) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Mont i el - Sanchez, 171 F. App' x 599, 600 ( 9t h

7 Consi der at i on of ot her pr oper l y pr oven r el evant conduct ,i ncl udi ng ot her cr i mes, i s appr opr i at e at t he sent enci ng phase,see, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Wat t s, 519 U. S. 148, 149 ( 1997) ( percur i am) ( al l owi ng consi der at i on of acqui t t ed conduct when pr oper l ypr oven) .

- 17-


18/28

Ci r . 2006) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cooney, 26 F. App' x 513, 529 ( 6t h Ci r .

2002) ; and Fi gueroa v. Uni t ed Stat es, 2013 WL 499473, No.

7: 13CV00038, at *1 ( W. D. Va. Feb. 8, 2013) . 8 We br i ef l y di scuss

t hese cases, whi ch ar ose i n ci r cumst ances di f f er ent f r om t hose

pr esent ed here. We t hi nk t he government ' s ot her cases are not

adequate t o warr ant a sent enci ng j ur y her e.

The most ser i ous di scussi on of t he sentenci ng j ury i ssue

i s by J udge Posner i n t he Booker case, whi ch ar ose i n a di f f er ent

cont ext . Ther e, J udge Posner pr edi ct ed t hat t he Sent enci ng

Gui del i nes as appl i ed i n t hat case woul d vi ol at e t he Si xt h

Amendment as i nt erpr eted i n Bl akel y v. Washi ngt on, 542 U. S. 296

( 2004) . The cour t di d not r ul e on whet her t he mandatory Gui del i nes

r emai ned val i d but r ul ed t hat i f t hey di d, " t he j udge can use a

sent enci ng j ur y. " Booker , 375 F. 3d at 515. 9 I n t hi s cont ext , t he

Sevent h Ci r cui t concl uded t hat t he def endant had a r i ght t o have a

j ury deter mi ne bot h t he quant i t y of t he drugs he possessed and t he

8 The gover nment ci t es a publ i shed Ni nt h Ci r cui t opi ni on,Uni t ed St at es v. Amel i ne, 376 F. 3d 967 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) . Thi sopi ni on was wi t hdr awn and repl aced by another , Uni t ed St at es v.Amel i ne, 400 F. 3d 646 ( 9t h Ci r . 2005) , whi ch di d not comment onwhet her empanel i ng a sent enci ng j ury woul d be pr oper on remand.

9 J udge Posner , i n t hat cont ext , al so comment ed:

There i s no novel t y i n a separ at e j ury t r i al wi t h r egar dt o t he sent ence, j ust as t her e i s no novel t y i n abi f ur cat ed j ur y t r i al , i n whi ch t he j ur y f i r st det er mi nesl i abi l i t y and then, i f and onl y i f i t f i nds l i abi l i t y,det ermi nes damages. Separat e hear i ngs bef ore a j ur y ont he i ssue of sent ence i s t he nor m i n capi t al cases.

Booker , 375 F. 3d at 514.

- 18-


19/28

f act s under l yi ng t he det er mi nat i on t hat he obst r uct ed j ust i ce,

unl ess t he par t i es agr eed on a sent ence whi ch di d not r equi r e

j udi ci al f act f i ndi ng. 10

More i mport ant l y, J udge Posner ant i ci pated some of t he

pr obl ems i nher ent i n the gover nment ' s r equest i n t hi s case, as we

di scuss f ur t her bel ow. As J udge Posner expl ai ned:

Of cour se[ , t he sent enci ng j ur y] wi l l not wor ki f t he f act s t hat t he gover nment woul d seek t oest abl i sh i n t he sent enci ng hear i ng ar eel ement s of a st at ut or y of f ense, f or t heywoul d t hen have to be al l eged i n thei ndi ct ment , and t o r e- i ndi ct at t hi s st agewoul d pr esent a doubl e- j eopardy i ssue. We canhar dl y at t empt t o resol ve such i ssues on t hi sappeal ; t he par t i es have not br i ef ed or ar guedt hem.

Booker , 375 F. 3d at 514. Al t hough t he i ndi ct ment her e di d i ncl ude

t he "deat h r esul t i ng" al l egat i ons, f r omdef endant ' s poi nt of vi ew,

t he pr osecut i on abandoned t hose al l egat i ons i n t he i ndi ct ment when

i t t ook t he posi t i on t hat t hey wer e not el ement s of t he cr i me.The unpubl i shed Ni nt h Ci r cui t case i s r eadi l y

di st i ngui shabl e on i t s f act s, as i t di d not i nvol ve any i ssue of

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s sent enci ng aut hor i t y, but r at her of t he

cour t ' s r ef usal t o al l ow t he def endant t o pr esent cer t ai n evi dence

dur i ng t he sent enci ng phase of an al r eady bi f ur cat ed j ur y t r i al .

Mont i el - Sanchez, 171 F. App' x at 600. The unpubl i shed Thi r d

10 The Supr eme Cour t ul t i matel y handl ed t he mat t er di f f er ent l yt han pr edi ct ed, r ender i ng t he Gui del i nes syst em advi sor y, i nJ ust i ce Br eyer ' s opi ni on i n Booker . See Booker , 543 U. S. at 245.

- 19-


20/28

Ci r cui t case di d not comment on t he val i di t y of t he sent enci ng j ur y

t hat had been empanel ed, but mer el y hel d that t he "ext r aor di nary"

wr i t of pr ohi bi t i on was an i mpr oper vehi cl e f or chal l engi ng t he

sent ence. I n r e Fi guer oa, 463 F. App' x at 100. And t he

unpubl i shed Si xt h Ci r cui t case di d not r equi r e t he di st r i ct cour t

on r emand t o empanel a sentenci ng j ury, but merel y acknowl edged

t hat i t was possi bl e t o do so and t hat ot her opt i ons al so exi st ed.

Cooney, 26 F. App' x at 529. What r emai ns i s a si ngl e Thi r d Ci r cui t

case, Uni t ed St at es v. Henr y. I n Henr y, t he def endant had

expl i ci t l y request ed t hat t he di st r i ct cour t empanel a sent enci ng

j ury af t er Appr endi was deci ded, bef or e hi s sentenci ng. 282 F. 3d

at 246. The Si xt h Amendment r i ght bel ongs to t he def endant . See

U. S. Const . Amend. VI ( "I n al l cr i mi nal pr osecut i ons, t he accused

shal l enj oy t he r i ght t o a speedy and publ i c t r i al , by an i mpar t i al

j ury . . . . " ( emphasi s added) ) ; Gannet t Co. v. DePasqual e, 443

U. S. 368, 383 ( 1979) ( expl ai ni ng that Si xth Amendment publ i c t r i al

r i ght bel ongs t o def endant , and ci t i ng as anal ogous t he Si xt h

Amendment r i ght s t o a j ur y t r i al and a speedy t r i al ) . Her e, i t i s

t he def endant who opposes such a j ury.

Al l eyne suggest s t he answer t o our pr obl em, but i t does

not f ace t hi s pr obl em head- on, as our pr eci se i ssue was not

pr esent ed. The Supr eme Cour t i n Al l eyne r emanded " f or r esent enci ng

consi st ent wi t h t he j ur y' s ver di ct , " whi ch di d not i ncl ude t he

aggr avat i ng f act or . 133 S. Ct . at 2164. Admi t t edl y, unl i ke her e,

- 20-


21/28

t he pr osecut i on i n Al l eyne di d ask the j ur y t o f i nd t hat t he

f i r ear m had been br andi shed and t he j ur y decl i ned t o do so. But

t hat di f f er ence does not hel p t he gover nment ' s posi t i on her e.

The Al l eyne Cour t al so deter mi ned t hat t he aggr avat i ng

f act or - - "br andi shi ng" a f i r ear m - - const i t ut ed an el ement of a

"separate, aggr avated" cr i me and t hat t he mandatory mi ni mum i t

t r i gger ed coul d not be i mposed wi t hout a f i ndi ng on pr oof beyond a

r easonabl e doubt . See i d. at 2162. Ther e i s no di sput e t hat t he

"deat h r esul t i ng" her e shoul d si mi l ar l y be vi ewed as an el ement of

a separat e cr i me. Pena has not been convi ct ed of t hi s separate

cr i me, but onl y of t he cr i mes f or whi ch he has ent er ed and t he

di st r i ct cour t has accept ed a gui l t y pl ea. An accept ed gui l t y pl ea

i s a convi ct i on and, l i ke a j ur y ver di ct , i s concl usi ve. Ker cheval

v. Uni t ed St at es, 274 U. S. 220, 223 ( 1927) . Mor eover , t he Cour t ' s

opi ni on i n Al l eyne di d not t ur n on t he j ur y' s f i ndi ngs on i t s

ver di ct f or m, but on t he f act t hat , i n vi ol at i on of t he def endant ' s

Si xt h Amendment r i ght s, i t was t he j udge who had made the

"brandi shi ng" f i ndi ng on a l esser st andar d of pr oof t hat l ed t o t he

hi gher mandat or y mi ni mum.

Deci si ons of t he Cour t s of Appeal s af t er Al l eyne have

r emanded f or r esent enci ng by t he cour t . We are not aware of any

cour t t hat has been conf r ont ed wi t h f act s anal ogous t o t hose her e.

But i n at l east ni ne ci r cui t cour t cases t hat have f ound r ever si bl e

Al l eyne er r or , t he sent ence was vacat ed and remanded f or

- 21-


22/28

r esent enci ng by t he di st r i ct j udge. 11 We ar e awar e of no case, and

t he par t i es have ci t ed none, r emandi ng f or use of a sent enci ng j ur y

af t er a r ever si bl e Al l eyne er r or .

Post - Appr endi cases ar e al so i nst r uct i ve, because

"Al l eyne i s an ext ensi on of t he Appr endi doct r i ne. " Har akal y, 734

F. 3d at 94. The r emedy f or an Appr endi er r or was usual l y a si mpl e

r emand t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or r esent enci ng. Thi s cour t r emanded

i n Uni t ed St at es v. Bai l ey, 270 F. 3d 83, 90 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) , i n

whi ch we f ound an Appr endi err or t hat was not harml ess. Even on

pl ai n er r or r evi ew, sever al of our si st er ci r cui t s l i kewi se hel d

t hat a r emand f or r esent enci ng by the di st r i ct j udge on t he char ge

of convi ct i on was r equi r ed. 12

11 See Uni t ed St at es v. O' Nei l , No. 12- 2237, 2014 WL 26289( 8t h Ci r . J an. 3, 2014) ; Uni t ed St at es v. J or dan, 531 F. App' x 995( 11t h Ci r . 2013) ; Uni t ed St ates v. DeLeon, No. 10- 4064, 2013 WL4850300 ( 4t h Ci r . Sept . 12, 2013) ; Uni t ed St ates v. Donovan, Nos.

11- 1843, 11- 2163, 11- 2450, 11- 2055, 2013 WL 4792866 ( 6t h Ci r . Sept .9, 2013) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Cl aybr ooks, 729 F. 3d 699 ( 7t h Ci r .2013) ; Uni t ed Stat es v. Mubdi , No. 10- 5008, 2013 WL 4517026 ( 4thCi r . Aug. 27, 2013) ; Uni t ed St ates v. Lake, 530 F. App' x 831 ( 10t hCi r . 2013) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Li r a, 725 F. 3d 1043 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) ;Uni t ed St at es v. Lar a- Rui z, 721 F. 3d 554 ( 8t h Ci r . 2013) . We not et hat Mubdi and Lake i nvol ved convi ct i ons by gui l t y pl eas. I nf ai r ness, we al so not e t hat t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t he gover nmentr ai sed i n any of t hese cases t he cl ai m of ent i t l ement t o asent enci ng j ur y.

12 See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Doe, 297 F. 3d 76, 93 ( 2d Ci r .

2002) ( on pl ai n er r or r evi ew, r emandi ng f or r esent enci ng bydi st r i ct cour t "f or exact l y t hat char ge t o whi ch [ def endant ] pl ed"wher e def endant pl ed gui l t y t o dr ug cr i mes i nvol vi ng unspeci f i edquant i t y but cour t had f ound quant i t y by a pr eponder ance) ; Uni t edSt at es v. Campbel l , 279 F. 3d 392, 397, 402 ( 6t h Ci r . 2002) ( onpl ai n er r or r evi ew, r emandi ng f or r esent enci ng by di st r i ct cour twher e def endant had pl ed gui l t y t o dr ug charges wi t h no speci f i ed

- 22-


23/28

B.

So f ar we have est abl i shed t hat t he r equest f or a

sent enci ng j ur y her e i s unusual and has no cl ear support . We now

t ur n t o why we t hi nk t he r equest must be r ej ect ed. Pena' s onl y

cr i mes of convi ct i on ar e t he t wo admi t t ed dr ug of f enses, wi t hout

any admi ssi on of gui l t on "deat h resul t i ng, " and the sent ence

shoul d be based on t hose cr i mes. Pena' s i ni t i al posi t i on was t hat

he was not gui l t y, t her eby i nvoki ng hi s r i ght t o r equi r e t he

government t o pr ove t he dr ug of f enses beyond a r easonabl e doubt .

He al t er ed t hat t o a pl ea of gui l t y on t he t wo dr ug char ges onl y,

i n r el i ance on t he gover nment ' s posi t i on. Pena t hus gave up t he

chance t hat t he gover nment woul d not be abl e t o pr ove gui l t ; he

accept ed gui l t , and accept ed he woul d be sent enced f or t hat gui l t .

I ndeed, he has al r eady been i ncar cer at ed f or near l y t wo year s

t owar d hi s sent ence si nce ent er i ng t he gui l t y pl ea; had he gone t o

t r i al and been acqui t t ed, he woul d not have served t hat t i me. We

see no i nequi t y i n hol di ng t he gover nment t o the posi t i on i t t ook.

Absent an agr eed upon r eservat i on, we gener al l y do not r el i eve

ei t her si de because i t s pr edi ct i on about how sent enci ng wi l l pl ay

out t ur ns out t o be wr ong.

quant i t y and di st r i ct cour t had made quant i t y f i ndi ngs) ; Uni t edSt ates v. Cer nobyl , 255 F. 3d 1215, 1221 ( 10t h Ci r . 2001) ( same) ;Uni t ed St at es v. Ni chol son, 231 F. 3d 445, 453, 455 ( 8t h Ci r . 2000)( same, af t er j ur y convi ct i on) .

- 23-


24/28

I n addi t i on, t he gover nment ' s r equest r ai ses a t hi cket of

pot ent i al and t hor ny doubl e j eopar dy i ssues, i nt o whi ch i t i s wi ser

not t o ent er . The gover nment ' s r equest al so i s l i kel y t o l ead t o

si t uat i ons of wi t hdr awal of gui l t y pl eas. As such, t he

gover nment ' s r equest under cut s t he f i nal i t y of cr i mi nal

pr oceedi ngs.

We touch on t he doubl e j eopar dy concer ns, and t he need t o

avoi d deci di ng t he i ssue i f we ar e abl e. "The l aw of doubl e

j eopar dy i s qui t e compl i cat ed . . . . " Uni t ed St at es v. Pi er ce, 60

F. 3d 886, 890 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) . I t i s t r ue t hat doubl e j eopar dy

does not usual l y appl y t o convi ct i ons whi ch have not become f i nal .

See Uni t ed St at es v. Rami r ez- Bur gos, 44 F. 3d 17, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 1995)

( observi ng that t he Doubl e J eopar dy Cl ause saf eguar ds agai nst a

second pr osecut i on f ol l owi ng a " f i nal convi ct i on" f or t he same

of f ense) . I f t hi s convi cti on wer e f i nal , t he const r ai nt of doubl e

j eopar dy woul d be cl earer . I t i s al so t r ue t hat t hose doubl e

j eopar dy saf eguar ds do not usual l y appl y t o r esent enci ng. See

Uni t ed St ates v. Domi nguez, 951 F. 2d 412, 416- 17 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) .

But t he ef f ect of Al l eyne and i t s pr edecessor s i s t o pr ecl ude

cer t ai n sent ences f r ombei ng i mposed unl ess t he el ement s support i ng

t hem have been pr oven t o a j ur y beyond a r easonabl e doubt . The

Supr eme Cour t has not yet deal t wi t h t he doubl e j eopardy i ssues i n

t hi s cont ext , much l ess i n t hese t r ansi t i on cases wher e what was

- 24-


25/28

once t hought t o be a sent enci ng i ssue has been recogni zed i nst ead

t o be an el ement of a cr i me.

I f t he pr osecut i on wer e now t o r ei ndi ct Pena f or t he

enhanced "deat h r esul t i ng" cr i me, i t woul d r un i nt o doubl e j eopar dy

pr obl ems, as i t woul d be seeki ng t o r ei ndi ct Pena wi t h a gr eat er

cr i me af t er a convi ct i on and sent ence f or a l esser i ncl uded

of f ense. See, e. g. , Br own v. Ohi o, 432 U. S. 161, 169 ( 1977) . The

pr osecut i on' s argument her e r ai ses t he r i sk of doi ng an end- r un

ar ound t he Doubl e J eopar dy Cl ause, by char act er i zi ng t he j ur y as a

"sent enci ng" j ur y. I f t he gover nment wer e t o r ei ndi ct , t hat j ur y

woul d not mer el y deci de a sent ence; i t woul d f i r st have t o deci de

whether t he government had pr oved al l t he el ement s of t he "deat h

r esul t i ng" cr i me beyond a r easonabl e doubt . Speci f i cal l y, i t woul d

have to deci de whet her t he government had proved that Pena

"knowi ngl y or i nt ent i onal l y" ( 1) manuf act ur ed, di st r i but ed,

di spensed, or possessed wi t h i nt ent t o manuf act ur e, di st r i but e, or

di spense ( 2) a cont r ol l ed subst ance ( 3) t hat was "100 gr ams or more

of a mi xt ur e or subst ance cont ai ni ng a det ect abl e amount of

her oi n, " and ( 4) t hat deat h or ser i ous bodi l y i nj ur y r esul t ed f r om

t he use of t hat cont r ol l ed subst ance. See 21 U. S. C. 841( a) ,

(b)(1)(B). 13

13 We r ef er t o t he el ement s of t he cr i me charged i n Count 1.Count 2 woul d not r equi r e pr oof of quant i t y.

- 25-


26/28

The prosecut i on' s proposed cour se of act i on here seeks t o

end- r un t hose requi r ement s, and t o obt ai n t he benef i t of t he pl ea' s

admi ssi ons t o t he essent i al el ement s of t he t wo dr ug cr i mes, whi ch

ar e al so among t he essent i al el ement s ( t he f i r st t hr ee el ement s

l i st ed above) of t he aggr avat ed "deat h r esul t i ng" cr i me. I ndeed,

t he pr osecut i on' s br i ef i s expl i ci t t hat t he sent enci ng j ur y woul d

t ake t he admi ssi ons of gui l t f r om t he pl ea f or t he ot her el ement s

and t hen deci de onl y t he "deat h r esul t i ng" i ssue. Under t he

doct r i ne of const i t ut i onal avoi dance, we do not deci de the doubl e

j eopar dy i ssues associ at ed wi t h t he gover nment ' s r equest , but not e

t hem and avoi d t hem. See Am. Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on of Mass. v.

U. S. Conf er ence of Cat hol i c Bi shops, 705 F. 3d 44, 52 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) .

Faced wi t h t hat advant age gai ned by t he gover nment , t he

def endant pr edi ct abl y coul d move t o wi t hdr aw hi s pl ea. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Al l ar d, 864 F. 2d 248, 250 n. 3 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ( adver t i ng

t o remedy of al l owi ng def endant t o wi t hdr aw gui l t y pl ea when t he

"const r uct i on af f or ded an i nf or mat i on or i ndi ct ment . . . di f f er [ s]

mat er i al l y f r om a def endant ' s under st andi ng of t he char ges at t he

t i me he pl ed" ) . 14 I ndeed, counsel f or Pena at or al ar gument sai d

14 A def endant may not change a gui l t y pl ea af t er sent enci ng.See Fed. R. Cr i m. P. 11( e) . But her e, t he sent ence must be vacatedand t he case r emanded. Under t hose ci r cumst ances, we assume,wi t hout deci di ng, t he Rul e 11( e) pr ohi bi t i on on wi t hdr awal ofgui l t y pl eas woul d not appl y. See Uni t ed St at es v. J er chower , 486F. App' x 68, 71 ( 11t h Ci r . 2012) .

- 26-


27/28

he woul d consi der doi ng t hat , i f he wer e t o l ose hi s appeal and t he

government were t o obt ai n a sent enci ng j ur y. 15

Thus, t he government ' s proposed r emedy of a sentenci ng

j ury woul d i ncr ease i ncent i ves t o wi t hdraw pl eas, whi ch woul d al so

under cut t he publ i c i nt er est i n cer t ai nt y and f i nal i t y. These

i nt er est s ar e par t i cul ar l y st r ong as t o gui l t y pl eas i n our l egal

syst em. See Uni t ed St at es v. Domi nguez Beni t ez, 542 U. S. 74, 82

( 2004) ( obser vi ng t he "par t i cul ar i mpor t ance of t he f i nal i t y of

gui l t y pl eas" ) . As t he Supr eme Cour t st at ed i n Uni t ed St at es v.

Ti mmr eck, 441 U. S. 780 ( 1979) :

[ T] he concer n wi t h f i nal i t y [ i n t he cont ext ofcol l at eral rel i ef ] . . . has speci al f orcewi t h r espect t o convi ct i ons based on gui l t ypl eas. Ever y i nr oad on t he concept off i nal i t y under mi nes conf i dence i n t hei nt egr i t y of our pr ocedur es; and, byi ncr easi ng t he vol ume of j udi ci al wor k,i nevi t abl y del ays and i mpai r s t he or der l yadmi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce. The i mpact i s

gr eatest when new gr ounds f or set t i ng asi degui l t y pl eas ar e appr oved because t he vastmaj or i t y of cri mi nal convi cti ons r esul t f r omsuch pl eas.

I d. at 784 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Smi t h, 440 F. 2d 521, 528- 29

( 7t h Ci r . 1971) ( St evens, J . , di ssent i ng) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k

omi t t ed) .

15 We do not , of cour se, addr ess t he out come of any suchmot i on. We merel y not e t hat i f t he pl ea were wi t hdr awn and t hepr osecut i on unsuccessf ul , t he near l y t wo year s Pena has al r eadyspent i n pr i son f ol l owi ng hi s pl ea coul d not be gi ven back t o hi m.

- 27-


28/28

The prosecut i on t r i es t o avoi d our concl usi on by sayi ng

bot h par t i es and the cour t cont empl at ed t her e woul d be f ol l ow- on

pr oceedi ngs and i t s hands are now bei ng unf ai r l y t i ed. We

di sagr ee. There was no doubt t here woul d be sent enci ng pr oceedi ngs

af t er Pena' s gui l t y pl ea. But i f t he pr osecut i on cont empl at ed t hat

i t woul d be f r ee t o pr esent t he "deat h r esul t i ng" t heor y t o a

sent enci ng- onl y j ur y i f t he Supr eme Cour t ul t i mat el y hel d t hat

"death r esul t i ng" was an el ement of t he cr i me, i t was remarkabl y

si l ent on t he i ssue. Had i t ar t i cul at ed such a posi t i on, t her e may

wel l not have been a gui l t y pl ea.

V.

The di st r i ct cour t ' s sentenci ng or der i s vacat ed and t he

case remanded f or r esent enci ng by t he di st r i ct j udge i n accor dance

wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

- 28-

united states v. herrerra pena, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents