IX. Plea & Sentencing Hearings
Miscellaneous Plea & Sentencing
Sixth Circuit
• Amending Sentence After JudgmentU.S. v. Carr, 04-1983 (8/31/05)
> Defendant violated his supervised release, and at the sentencing hearing the district court stated that it was giving defendant 16 months in prison with the maximum amount of supervised release to follow. The government advised that defendant could receive 44 months of supervised release to follow the prison term, and the court stated that it would impose that sentence as long as defendant’s counsel “did not have a problem with it.” The court first issued a written judgment order that imposed 16 months incarceration, but did not mention supervised release. Then, 23 days later, the court issued an amended judgment that included 44 months of supervised release to follow the jail term. Defendant appealed.
* Holding: After seven days have passed since the issuance of a written judgment, the only available mechanism for a district court to amend a judgment is Fed. Rule Crim. P. 36 which allows the court to correct clerical errors. The court held that a district court may not use the rule to effectuate its unexpressed intentions at sentencing, but only to correct items inadvertently left out of the judgment entry. Given the district court’s statements at sentencing, the court found that the omission of the 44 months of supervised release from the original judgment order was merely an oversight and affirmed the district court’s amended order. Further, the court ruled that defendant had not been denied his right to allocution by the amended judgment because the district court stated its intention at the hearing and gave defendant the right to be heard.
• Enhancements - Corroboration Rule
U.S. v. Huffman, 05-2058 (8/30/06)
> Defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and the district court applied a guideline enhancement for possessing the firearm in relation to another felony offense, based upon defendant’s admissions to the police at the time of his arrest. Defendant appealed.
* Holding: Pursuant to the Supreme Court decision Opper v. U.S., a defendant may not be convicted solely upon the basis of statements made to the police. In this case, the court held, for the first time in a published opinion, that Opper does not apply in the sentencing context. As long as a defendant’s statements are reliable and voluntary, they may be used as the basis for a sentencing enhancement. Thus, the sentence was affirmed.
• Withdrawal of Guilty Plea
U.S. v. Haygood, 07-1771 (12/15/08)
> Defendant was charged with marijuana and firearm offenses and he proceeded to trial. On the last day of trial, defendant entered into a plea agreement with the government and pled guilty. Four-and-a-half months later at the sentencing hearing, defendant attempted to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that he wanted to pursue a motion to suppress that was never filed before trial. The district court denied his request and defendant appealed.
* Holding: In considering whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea, the court must determine whether defendant has provided a “fair and just” reason for requesting the withdrawal. The court must consider seven factors: (1) the amount of time elapsed; (2) any valid reason for failing to move for withdrawal earlier in the proceedings; (3) whether defendant maintained his innocence; (4) the circumstances of the guilty plea; (5) the defendant’s nature and background; (6) defendant’s prior experience with the criminal justice system; and (7) any prejudice to the government. In the case, the court held that defendant had no “fair and just” reason because no motion to suppress was filed prior to trial as required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C). Further, defendant waited four-and-a-half months before raising the issue without any good reason. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction was affirmed.