State Sentencing Sheet Sufficiently Clear to Show Prior Conviction Was Controlled Substance Offense

US v. Boyd: Boyd was convicted of drug and firearm offenses. The probation officer concluded that Boyd was a career offender based on prior convictions in South Carolina for assault with intent to kill and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He objected, arguing that the assault conviction could be committed recklessly and that the relevant Shepard documents for the drug conviction were “inconclusive about the crime of conviction.” The district court rejected both arguments and imposed a sentence of 262 months in prison.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Boyd’s sentence. In his initial briefing, Boyd did not raise any issue related to the assault conviction, but sought to raise the mens rea argument after the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden via a supplemental authority letter. The court ordered additional briefing on the matter, including whether Boyd had abandoned that argument. Ultimately, the court held that he had, noting that Borden did not change the law in the Fourth Circuit and, therefore, the mens rea argument was available when the case was initially briefed. As to the drug offense, the court concluded that it had previously held that “sentencing sheets” from South Carolina were sufficient to prove the nature of a prior offense and that the specific sheet here, which included the notations “poss.” and “w.i.t.d.” was sufficient to prove he was convicted of a controlled substance offense.

Judge Harris dissented on the drug offense issue (which would have rendered the assault argument moot), arguing that the sentencing sheet was sufficiently ambiguous that it could not clearly demonstrate which offense Boyd had pleaded guilty to.