United States v. Hofierka , 83 F.3d 357 ( 1996 )

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Nos. 95-2151, 95-2258
Non-Argument Calendars.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Michael A. HOFIERKA, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ronald Carl ANDREWS, a/k/a "Barracuda", Defendant-Appellant.
May 16, 1996.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. (Nos. 93-67-CR-J-20, 88-60-Cr-J-20), Harvey E.
Schlesinger, Judge.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, and HATCHETT and ANDERSON, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case comes to us on consolidated appeal. Appellants
Michael A. Hofierka and Ronald Carl Andrews separately appeal the
sentences imposed on them for violating the terms of their
supervised release. In both cases, the sentencing judge exceeded
the sentencing range set forth in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing
Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). On appeal, appellants argue:
1) that the district court was bound by the Chapter 7 sentencing
range and erred in imposing a sentence in excess of this range;
and 2) that the district court erred in failing to provide notice
of its intent to exceed the sentencing range. In addition, Andrews
argues that the district court erred in its reliance on his state
conviction in revoking his supervised release.1 We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Appellant Hofierka
In 1993, Hofierka pleaded guilty to making a false claim to an
agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 287. On
August 19, 1993, the district court sentenced him to nine months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release. As one of the
terms of Hofierka's supervised release, the court ordered that he
participate in a drug treatment program and refrain from using
illegal drugs. Hofierka's term of supervised release began in May
1994, but by December of that year, revocation proceedings had
begun.
The petition seeking revocation of his supervised release
alleged that Hofierka violated the conditions of his release by
using cocaine and failing to participate in a drug treatment
program. At his revocation hearing, Hofierka admitted that he had
been dismissed from his drug treatment program because of his drug
use. The district court revoked Hofierka's supervised release and
sentenced him to twenty-four months of imprisonment.2 The
twenty-four-month sentence exceeded the applicable Chapter 7
sentencing range of seven to thirteen months. See U.S.S.G. §
1
We reject, without further discussion Andrew's argument
that the district court violated United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d
1097, 1102-03 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 906, 111 S. Ct.
275, 112 L. Ed. 2d 230 (1990), overruled on other grounds sub nom.
United States v. Morrill, 984 F.2d 1136 (11th Cir.1993).
2
Because the offense for which a term of supervised release
was imposed upon Hofierka was a class D felony, 18 U.S.C.A. §§
287, 3559(a), the maximum term of imprisonment for the revocation
of his supervised release was two years. 18 U.S.C.A. §
3583(e)(3).
7B1.4(a). The court imposed this sentence over Hofierka's
objection that it exceeded the applicable range.
B. Appellant Andrews
In 1988, Andrews pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 844(a), and possession of cocaine with
intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1). The
district court sentenced Andrews to imprisonment of sixty-three
months and five years of supervised release. As one of the
conditions of his supervised release, Andrews could not commit
another federal, state, or local crime.
In October 1992, Andrews began his term of supervised release.
Within one year, in September 1993, Andrews was arrested in Florida
for violations of state law which included conspiracy to traffic in
cocaine and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On
October 19, 1993, Andrews pleaded guilty to these charges;
however, he subsequently moved to set aside his plea. He argued
that he had not been advised that the offense to which he pleaded
guilty carried a fifteen-year mandatory minimum prison sentence and
that the state court had improperly promised that his state
sentence would run concurrently to any federal sentence he received
for violating the terms of his supervised release. The state court
denied Andrew's motion. His conviction was affirmed on appeal.
Meanwhile, on October 29, 1993, proceedings had begun in
federal court to revoke Andrews' supervised release. At his final
revocation hearing, Andrews refused to admit he had committed a
violation of the terms of his supervised release. He argued that
the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea was pending
before a state appellate court. The district court granted the
government's motion for a continuance of the revocation hearing.3
By the time the proceedings resumed, Andrews' conviction had been
affirmed on appeal. He continued to argue, however, that his
guilty plea was invalid for the same reasons he pressed before the
state court.
In support of its contention that Andrews violated the terms
of his supervised release, the government offered only Andrews'
state judgment of conviction. Andrews did not challenge the fact
of his conviction or the admission of the judgment into evidence.
4
Instead, he offered a copy of his plea agreement into evidence.
Andrews argued that the plea agreement on its face proved that his
5
state conviction was based upon an invalid guilty plea. The
district court rejected these contentions and found that Andrews
had violated the terms of his supervised release. Andrews was
3
The court granted the continuance in order to provide the
government the opportunity to gather enough evidence to prove the
supervised release violation without having to rely exclusively
on the state conviction. At the postponed sentencing hearing,
however, the government resorted to exclusive reliance on the
conviction.
4
The plea agreement provided, in relevant part:
I will enter a plea of guilty to the charge of
Conspiracy to Traffick [sic] in Cocaine for a maximum
sentence not to exceed fifteen (15) years in the
custody of the Department of Corrections and a fine not
to exceed $250,000.00. Any sentence I receive in the
State System will run concurrently with any sentence I
might receive from the Federal Court for my Violation
of Probation.
5
Andrews contends that the state failed to inform him of the
mandatory minimum sentence for the crime to which he pleaded
guilty and improperly represented that his federal sentence would
be concurrent to his state sentence.
sentenced to five years of imprisonment.6 Before imposing this
sentence, the court noted that Andrews had committed the violation
within one year of beginning supervised release and that, based on
this history, "that seems to be a course of conduct he periodically
follows." The term of imprisonment imposed on Andrews exceeds the
range of twenty-four to thirty months set forth in Chapter 7 of the
Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a).
II. DISCUSSION
A. Sentences under Chapter 7
Hofierka and Andrews argue that the district court improperly
imposed a sentence in excess of the range specified in U.S.S.G. §
7B1.4(a). Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines contains policy
statements which provide ranges of imprisonment that a court may
follow when revoking probation or supervised release. See U.S.S.G.
Ch. 7, Pt. A, intro. We have unequivocally held that the Chapter
7 policy statements are merely advisory, i.e., they are not
binding. United States v. Thompson, 976 F.2d 1380, 1381 (11th
Cir.1992). Appellants argue that this holding has been undercut by
two recent decisions of the Supreme Court: Stinson v. United
States, 508 U.S. 36, 113 S. Ct. 1913, 123 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1993), and
Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 112 S. Ct. 1112, 117
L. Ed. 2d 341 (1992). This argument is frivolous as we have held
that our rule in Thompson is unaffected by either Stinson or
6
Because one of the offenses for which a term of supervised
release was imposed upon Andrews was a class A felony, 21
U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3559(a), the maximum term of
imprisonment for the revocation of his supervised release was
five years. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3).
Williams.7 United States v. Milano, 32 F.3d 1499, 1502-03 (11th
Cir.1994).
Appellants go further, however, by arguing that the recent
amendment of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)(4)(B) requires sentencing courts
to follow the Chapter 7 policy statements. The Violent Crime
Control & Law Enforcement Act of 1994, effective September 13,
1994, amended § 3553 to read, in relevant part:
(a) Factors to be considered in imposing a sentence.—The
court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph
(2) of this subsection. The court, in determining the
particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider—
. . . . .
(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range
established for—
(A) the applicable category of offense committed by
the applicable category of defendant as set forth
in the guidelines that are issued by the Sentencing
Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(1) of title
28, United States Code, and that are in effect on
the date the defendant is sentenced; or
(B) in the case of a violation of probation or
supervised release, the applicable guidelines or
policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(3) of title
28, United States Code;
(5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the
Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(2)
that is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced;
....
(b) Application of guidelines in imposing a sentence.—The
court shall impose a sentence of the kind, and within the
range, referred to in subsection (a)(4) unless the court finds
that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of
a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into
7
We are disturbed by the fact that appellants have raised
this issue in light of our unmistakable holding in Milano.
Appellants fail to distinguish or even mention this case.
consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the
guidelines and that should result in a sentence different from
that described.
(new text underlined). Appellants argue that subsection (b)
requires the sentencing court to impose a sentence within the range
specified for a violation of probation or supervised release.
The Sixth Circuit in United States v. West, 59 F.3d 32 (6th
Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S. Ct. 486, 133 L. Ed. 2d 413
(1995), recently rejected this argument. The court held that the
amendment to § 3553 does not render the sentencing range in Chapter
7 mandatory. First, it found that, under the plain meaning of
subsection (b), a sentencing court is only required to impose a
sentence within the applicable guideline range. Id. at 35. The
court held that because Chapter 7 is merely a policy statement and
not a guideline, sentencing courts are not bound by it. Id.8 We
readily follow the court in West and adopt its reasoning. See also
United States v. Escamilla, 70 F.3d 835 (5th Cir.1995).
The plain language of § 3553 indicates that the sentencing
court, in imposing a sentence upon revocation of a defendant's
supervised release, must at least consider the sentencing range
prescribed by the Sentencing Commission's policy statements. The
heading and text of subsection (b) make clear that its mandatory
language refers only to those situations in which sentences are
imposed pursuant to guidelines. Because the Chapter 7 sentencing
range is a mere policy statement and not a guideline (in the sense
8
Further, the court properly noted that if the Sentencing
Commission decides to issue true "guidelines" rather than policy
statements, courts will be bound to impose sentences within the
specified range. Id.
of binding courts), the language in subsection (b) does not apply
to sentencing under Chapter 7.
Indeed, the interpretation pressed by appellants would not
make practical sense. The Sentencing Commission specifically
stated in Chapter 7 that it issued advisory policy statements
rather than guidelines for sentences imposed upon the revocation of
supervised release in order to provide district courts with greater
flexibility. Milano, 32 F.3d at 1503 (citing U.S.S.G. Ch. 7, Pt.
A(3)(a)). It is against this backdrop that Congress amended §
3553. Congress understood that courts have consistently
distinguished guidelines from mere policy statements and nothing in
the statute persuades us that it intended to change the meaning of
these words. Accordingly, consistent with Milano, Thomas, and the
reasoning set forth above, "we hold that, while the district court
in this case was required to consider the Chapter 7 policy
statements in determining [appellants'] sentence, the Court was not
bound to apply the sentence set forth in section 7B1.4." Milano,
32 F.3d at 1503.
Hofierka and Andrews alternatively argue that, even if the
Chapter 7 sentencing range is not binding, the district court
failed to consider this range before imposing the sentences. In
Milano, we held that sentencing courts must consider the policy
statements in Chapter 7 before imposing a sentence, although they
are not bound to follow these statements. 32 F.3d at 1503. We
review the district court's decision to exceed the Chapter 7
sentencing range for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Thompson, 976 F.2d 1380, 1381 (11th Cir.1992).
As to both appellants, the record amply reveals that the
district court adequately considered the Chapter 7 sentencing
range. In both cases, the district court explicitly mentioned the
Chapter 7 range and chose to exceed it.
B. Notice of Intent to Exceed the Chapter 7 Sentencing Range
Appellants argue that the district court failed to provide
any notice of its intent to exceed the Chapter 7 sentencing range.
It is clear that a district court must give a defendant reasonable
notice before sua sponte departing upward from a guideline
sentencing range "on a ground not identified as a ground for upward
departure either in the presentence report or in a prehearing
submission by the Government." Burns v. United States, 501 U.S.
129, 137-38, 111 S. Ct. 2182, 2187-88, 115 L. Ed. 2d 123 (1991);
United States v. Valentine, 21 F.3d 395, 397 (11th Cir.1994). The
purpose behind this rule is to promote "focused, adversarial
resolution of the legal and factual issues relevant to fixing
Guidelines sentences." Burns, 501 U.S. at 137, 111 S.Ct. at 2187.
With proper notice, defendants are able to marshal evidence with
which to contest facts supporting a proposed upward departure.
Valentine, 21 F.3d at 398. We have not decided whether a
sentencing court must give notice before exceeding a Chapter 7
recommended sentencing range.
Because we hold that the Chapter 7 sentencing range is not
binding on district courts and that it is within their discretion
to exceed this range, it follows that exceeding this range does not
constitute a "departure." See United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d
87, 93 n. 13 (5th Cir.1994) ("A sentence which diverges from
advisory policy statements is not a departure such that a court has
to provide notice or make specific findings normally associated
with departures under § 3553(b)."); United States v. Davis, 53
F.3d 638, 642 n. 15 (4th Cir.1995) ("It is well established that
"[a] sentence which diverges from advisory policy statements is not
a departure.' ") (quoting Mathena, supra); United States v.
Blackston, 940 F.2d 877, 893 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 992,
112 S. Ct. 611, 116 L. Ed. 2d 634 (1991) ("When working with policy
statements (as opposed to guidelines), the district court is not
required ... to impose a sentence outside of the prescribed range
... by finding an aggravating factor that warrants an upward
departure...."). Consequently, we hold that the sentencing court
is not required to give notice of its intent to exceed the Chapter
7 sentencing range.
This conclusion follows directly from the nature of sentencing
under Chapter 7. By statute, Congress has authorized maximum terms
of supervised release which vary depending on the nature of the
original felony. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(b). For example, the maximum
term of supervised release for a Class A or B felony is five years
and for a Class C or D felony is three years.9 Upon revocation of
a term of supervised release, the court may require a defendant to
serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release
authorized by statute without credit for time served on
post-release supervision. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3). The court may
not, however, impose a sentence upon revocation of greater than
9
The class of felony is determined by reference to 18
U.S.C.A. § 3559.
five years in prison where the original crime was a class A felony,
three years where it was a class B felony, two years where it was
a class C or D felony, or one year in any other case. Id. In
Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission
has promulgated policy statements which are intended to aid the
court in imposing a sentence upon revocation of probation or
supervised release. As discussed, these policy statements are not
binding on district courts. Thus, any recommendation of sentences
before the district court or argument against a particular sentence
should be grounded in the common understanding that the district
court may impose any sentence within the statutory maximum. A
sentence in excess of the Chapter 7 range is not a departure, and
is permitted so long as it is within the range imposed by Congress.
No notice is necessary because the applicable range is dictated by
statute, not by Chapter 7.
The facts of the present cases illustrate our point. Before
sentencing Hofierka, the district court made clear that the maximum
allowable sentence was two years. With this in mind, the parties
discussed at length Hofierka's troublesome drug addiction and
attempted to arrive at a sentence which would address his
particular needs. Hofierka suggested a sentence within the Chapter
7 range, which was considered, but the court chose to impose the
maximum sentence.
Similarly, at his final revocation sentencing proceeding, the
court informed Andrews that although Chapter 7 recommended a range
of twenty-four to thirty months, the maximum sentence was up to
five years. The judge permitted both parties to present evidence
and argument on the appropriate sentence. Based on Andrews
apparent pattern of committing drug offenses a short time after his
release from prison, the court elected to impose the maximum
sentence.
C. Collateral Review of Andrews' Underlying Conviction
Finally, Andrews contends that the district court erred in
relying on his state conviction as grounds to revoke his supervised
release. He challenges his state conviction, arguing that the
state's misrepresentations rendered his guilty plea
unconstitutional. Andrews entered into a written plea agreement
with the Florida state attorney in which, he contends, he agreed to
plead guilty to a charge of cocaine trafficking in exchange for a
sentence not to exceed fifteen years and to run concurrently with
the sentence he anticipated upon revocation of his supervised
release. Relying on Finch v. Vaughn, 67 F.3d 909, 916 (11th
Cir.1995), he urges us to declare his guilty plea unconstitutional
because it was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.10 He
concludes that the district court improperly relied on this
unconstitutional conviction as the sole evidence of a violation of
the terms of his supervised release.
We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the
judgment of conviction was sufficient notwithstanding Andrews'
claim that it was based on an unconstitutional guilty plea. A
10
Andrews avers that, contrary to his plea agreement, the
mandatory minimum sentence for the crime to which he pleaded
guilty was fifteen years and that the state misled him in this
regard. Further, he argues that the state improperly represented
that his federal sentence would be concurrent to his state
sentence.
court may revoke a defendant's term of supervised release and
impose a prison sentence when it finds by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his or her
supervised release. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3). A certified copy of
a conviction is proper evidence that a defendant violated a state
or federal law and, thereby, violated a condition of his or her
supervised release.
As to Andrews' argument that the conviction was
unconstitutional, a supervised release revocation proceeding is not
the proper forum in which to attack the conviction giving rise to
the revocation. See United States v. Francischine, 512 F.2d 827,
828-29 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 931, 96 S. Ct. 284, 46
L. Ed. 2d 261 (1975) ("[T]he underlying validity of a conviction
cannot be asserted as a defense in a probation revocation
proceeding [and] the conviction's validity may be collaterally
attacked only in a separate proceeding under 28 U.S.C.A. §
2255....").11 See also United States v. Fleming, 9 F.3d 1253, 1254
(7th Cir.1993) ("The conviction itself, whether or not an appeal is
taken, provides adequate proof of the violation of state law to
justify revoking probation."); United States v. Torrez Flores, 624
F.2d 776, 780 (7th Cir.1980) ("However meritorious defendant's ...
claim may be, an appeal from a probation revocation is not the
proper avenue for a collateral attack on the underlying
conviction."); United States v. Gentile, 610 F.2d 541, 542 (8th
Cir.1979) ("Federal courts have consistently ruled that a criminal
11
This case was decided prior to the close of business on
September 30, 1981, and is binding precedent under Bonner v. City
of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981).
conviction provides sufficient grounds for revocation of probation
even though an appeal from the conviction is still pending.");
United States v. Simmons, 812 F.2d 561, 563 (9th Cir.1987)
("Irrespective of the merits of [defendant's] claim, an appeal from
a probation revocation is not the proper avenue for a collateral
attack on the underlying conviction.... [A] court should consider
the petition for probation revocation as if the underlying
conviction was unquestioned.").
The rule from Francischine unquestionably applies in this
context. The Constitution does not require otherwise. Cf. Custis
v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 114 S. Ct. 1732, 1738, 128
L. Ed. 2d 517 (1994) (suggesting that the Constitution may only
require such collateral review for failure to appoint counsel to
represent an indigent defendant); United States v. Roman, 989 F.2d
1117, 1120 (11th Cir.1993) (en banc) (suggesting that the
Constitution may only require such collateral review of uncounseled
convictions). As the Supreme Court recently suggested in a
different but analogous context, refusal to permit such collateral
attack of convictions furthers the goal of finality of judgments.
See Custis, --- U.S. at ----, 114 S. Ct. at 1738-39. The sentence
in this case will be presumed valid until it is vacated on direct
review or in an appropriate collateral proceeding. Cf. United
States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 317 (11th Cir.1993) ("A sentence is
presumed valid until vacated under § 2255."). If Andrews'
conviction is reversed, he may seek appropriate modification of his
supervised release revocation sentence at that time. Cf. Custis,
--- U.S. at ----, 114 S. Ct. at 1739 ("If [defendant] is successful
in attacking these state sentences, he may then apply for reopening
of any federal sentence enhanced by the state sentence."). Of
course, we express no opinion on what might constitute such an
appropriate modification.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district
court's judgments and sentences with respect to both Hofierka and
Andrews.
AFFIRMED.12
12
Appellants' requests for oral argument are DENIED.