US v. Lewis: Lewis (along with two others) robbed a pawn shop, during which “Lewis pointed his firearm at the manager and struck him I the back of the head three times, causing him to fall on the floor.” He was left with a “red spot” on the back of his head, felt “dizzy,” and was taken to the hospital for more than $3500 in unspecific tests and treatment. After Lewis pleaded guilty to robbery and firearm offenses, the probation officer recommended that his Guideline range be enhanced because he inflicted a serious bodily injury. The district court concluded that the enhancement applied, having “guess[ed]” that the manager had suffered a “mild concussion.” All that was necessary was that the manager had “an injury that caused him to seek medical attention, and he did.” Lewis was sentenced to a total of 130 months in prison.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated Lewis’ sentence, concluding that the district court had improperly applied the law as related to the bodily injury enhancement. Under the Guidelines “bodily injury” is defined as “any significant injury,” but does not further define the term. The court noted that while the injury does not need to “interfere completely with the injured person’s life” it “cannot be wholly trivial” and must “last for some meaningful period.” Medical treatment consisting entirely of “precautionary measures” do not suggest an injury is significant. Thus, a injury that lasts for some time and is more than wholly trivial are “necessary, though perhaps not sufficient, conditions for the enhancement.” Here, the district court erred by not applying that standard. The court held that such error was not harmless, rejecting the Government’s argument that the facts develop supported the enhancement under the proper standard, noting that the Government failed to produce medical records to show what treatment the victim received.
Congrats to the Defender office in Western North Carolina on the win!
No comments:
Post a Comment