US v. Solis-Rodriguez: S-R was involved in two incidents with a gun, the first when he was just in possession of it, the second when he shot someone in the hand. As a result, he was charged with two counts of possession a firearm as an undocumented alien. At the plea hearing before a magistrate, S-R was informed that the statutory maximum for his offenses was 10 years in prison – not 10 years each. After pleading guilty, S-R was sentenced to 180 months in prison, just below the top of the advisory Guideline range.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed S-R’s conviction and sentence. As to the conviction, the court found that while the failure to ensure S-R knew that each charge against him carried a 10-year maximum sentence and that the error was plain, it concluded S-R could not show he was prejudiced by that error because he could not prove that he would have not pleaded guilty had he known that information. As to the sentence, the court concluded that the district court sufficiently addressed S-R’s arguments for a lesser sentence. S-R had presented arguments based on his youth and lack of criminal history. While the district court did not specifically address those, it did (twice) ensure it had considered all the §3553(a) factors before focusing on other factors it found “particularly important” (the nature of the offenses). The court also noted that the district court asked counsel after sentence was imposed if there was “any legal reason why this sentence as proposed should not be imposed,” thus “offer[ing] both parties an opportunity to raise concerns with the sentence.”
Judge Traxler concurred in the judgment, arguing plain error was the proper standard of review of the sentence because “defense counsel’s silence in the face of that question” about whether there was any reason not to impose the “proposed” sentence “operated as a forfeiture of defendant’s argument.”
No comments:
Post a Comment