 |
All Courts |
 |
Federal Courts |
|
US Court of Appeals Cases |
|
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit |
|
2021-06 |
-
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-1124 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFREY ESPOSITO, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Case No. 1:18-CR-00109— Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED MAY 12, 2021 — DECIDED JUNE 11, 2021 ____________________ Before FLAUM, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. ě¢ȱ, convicted of mul- ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡¢ȱ ¡ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱof pos- ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢ȱ ȱ prison. He appeals, ȱthat the district ȱ ǰȱȬ ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱȱn each individual count and then added to- . Because the district court did not err ȱȱ Espositoǰȱ ȱĜ. 2 No. 20-1124 I ¢ȱ ȱ ¡¢ȱ ȱ and abused his adopted son from Guatemala ȱ¢ǰȱȱ ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱȱcouple of ¢ȱ before he turned sixteen. Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ repetitive, ǰȱand horrific. In addition to anal and oral penetra- tion, ȱ ȱǰ ȱȱȱȱǰȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ¢ǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯȱ Esposito documented his abuse in videos and ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱonȱȱȱȱ . He had also ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢—hundreds of thou- ȱȱȱȱ—¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ. ȱ ȱȱ ȱŘŖȱȱȱ¡¢ȱ¡Ȭ ȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȬ uȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ taken ¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȬ ¢ǯȱEsposito ȱ¢ȱ ȱȱȱ. Iȱȱȱȱǰȱȱdefendant’s of- ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱśŗǰȱ ȱȱȱa maxi- mum of 43 ȱȱȱ . Esposito had no ȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ Gȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ prison, but none of the crimes ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ victed ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ . The probation department recommended that Esposito be impris- oned ȱŜŖŖȱ¢ǯȱȱ ȱȱŜŘŖȱ¢ǯȱȱ defense ȱ420 months, ȱȱ ld finish his ȱȱ¡¢ȱŘŞȱ¢ǯȱȱȱ ȱȱ Esposito, ȱ ȱ in his mid-fifties, a chance at release from prison near the end of his life. No. 20-1124 3 ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ the district court explained ¢ȱȱconcluded that a de factȱȱȱ ȱ for Esposito. Then the court pronounced Esposito’s sentences, count ¢ countǰȱȱsix 30-¢ȱȱto be served consecutive to each other, ȱ ¢ȱ fifteen 20-¢ȱ Ȭ tences to be served concurrent each other but consecu- tive to the 30-¢ȱ ǯȱ These sentences totaled 200 ¢ȱȱǯ ȱ ȱ , claim the district court sen- ȱȱ¢ǯȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȬ sidered his criminal conduct, ¢, and characteristics as a , determined an appropriate overall punishment, and then set the sentences for each count to equal that overall pun- ishment. II A ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ǯȱt the sentenc- ȱ, the defendant ȱȱȱȱȱmethod the court used to arrive at his sentences, alȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ clarification of the consecutive-versus-concurrent aspect of the sentences ȱ ȱȱŘŖŖȱ¢ȱ ȱǯȱ The defendant contends he has raised a procedural chal- ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ See United States v. Ballardǰȱ şśŖȱ F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2020); United States v. Pennington,
908 F.3d 234, 238 (7th Cir. 2018). He ȱȱȱȱȱȬ ȱȱȱunder ȱȱȱȱȱśŗǻǼ, ȱȱ“[e]¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ¢ǯȄ Tȱȱubmits that the plain error doctrine un- dȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ śŘǻǼȱ should 4 No. 20-1124 appl¢ here. Plain error has three elements: the error (1) has ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱǰȱ(2) must be clear or obvious, and (3) must have affected the defendant’s ȱhts. Molina-Martinez v. United States,
136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016). ȱȱ ȱȱlain errorǰȱȱȬ ȱǰȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯȱ But ¢ȱȱȱ’s position, a ȂȱȬ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ
Id.As this court concluded in United States v. SpeedǰȱŞŗŗȱǯřȱŞśŚȱǻŝȱǯȱŘŖŗŜǼ, ȱ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱtions—like ȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȂȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ —ȱ £ȱ ȱ about ȱ ȱ ȱconfused or had ¢ȱ ȱȱ¢ǯ
Id.at Şśŝ–śŞ; see also United States v. Mzembe,
979 F.3d 1169, 1173 (7th Cir. 2020) ǻȃȱȱȱȱȬ ȱȱǰȱȃ¢ȱǵȄȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱǰȱ ǰȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¡ǯȄǼǯȱ ǰȱȱȱ’s i¢ǰȱ ȱȱ¢ȱǰȱ ȱDZȱ ǰȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱřśśřǻǼȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȧȱ nditions of supervised release ǽǵǾ ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱan ¡ȱȱ ȱthe court had calculated the consecutive ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢ȱ ǯȱ ȱȱ¢ǰȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱ forfeiture. No. 20-1124 ś The defense has the better of thȱ. Esposito ȱȱdistrict ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱǯȱȱThis ȱ¢ȱ£ȱȱȱural error. Gall v. United States, śśŘȱǯǯȱřŞǰȱśŗȱǻŘŖŖŝǼȱǻȃȱȱ¢ȱ¡ȱȱ ȱȄǼDzȱsee also Pennington, 908 F.3d at 238 (chal- ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȂȱ¡ȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱal error). Esposito claims the district court ȱ¢ȱȱadherȱȱǰȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ ǯȱ ȱȱǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱde novo Esposito’s chal- ȱȱȱǯ B Esposito ȱȱdistrict court should have determined his correct overall punishment and then conformed the sen- tences on the individual counts to achieve that total. He relies on the text of ǯǯǯ ǯȱȗȱś ŗǯŘǰȱ ȱȱȱrelevant part: (b) … the court shall determine the total punish- ment and shall impose that total punishment on ȱȱǰȱ¡ȱȱȱ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ¢ȱ ǯ … (d) ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱȱ¢ȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱ total punishment, then the sentence imposed on one or more of the other counts shall run con- ¢ǰȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ produce a combined sentence equal to the total 6 No. 20-1124 punishment. In all other respects, sentences on ȱȱȱȱ¢ǰȱ¡ȱȱȱ exȱ ȱȱ¢ȱ ǯ Esposito also cites United States v. De la TorreǰȱřŘŝȱǯřȱŜŖśȱ (7th Cir. 2003), ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȬ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ I¢, a ŗśŗ-month sentence ȱȱfor the ȱ¢ȱȱ ¢ȱȱǰȱȱ ȱa 60-month concurrent sentence for the distribution ȱ count. Id. at 607. Due to Apprendi v. New Jersey, śřŖȱǯǯȱŚŜŜȱǻŘŖŖŖǼǰȱȱ¡Ȭ mum sentence for the ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱŜŖȱ moǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱȬ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŗśŗ-month sentence ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱ ȱȱa ȱ ȱ¢ȱ¡ǰȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ Guidelines ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŗśŗ-month sentence. Id. at 607–08. The ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ the defendant’s sentence to 71 ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱs and 60 months on ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǯȱ Id. ȱ Ȭ ment appealed. This court reversed the district court in De la Torre. We ex- plained that the purpose of the Guidelines is to determine the ȃȱ Ȅȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ Id. 609–11. ȱ¢ȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ the GȱȱȱȱǯȱId. This holds true even in cases like De la Torre, ȱat ȱȱȱȱȱ offense ȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱ¡ǯȱId. Of course, ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱȬ ¢ȱ¡ȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȗȱś ŗǯŘǻǼȱȱȱ Ȭ lines explains, the sentences for other counts can be set, con- ¢ȱȱ¢ǰȱȱȱȱȱǯȱ Id. No. 20-1124 7 See also United States v. Griffith, ŞśȱǯřȱŘŞŚȱǻŝȱǯȱŗşşŜǼ (con- ȱthe same issue as in De la Torre). Esposito’s ȱ here is technical, and it imports a ¢ȱ that the Guidelines do not require. If, before ȱȱȱȱcount ¢ count, the district court had stated ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢—rather than mer¢ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ total ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ—then, per Es- posito, the district ȱ ȱȱȱǯȱAfter its sen- ȱ ǰȱ the district court imposed sentences count ¢ ȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢ǯ To the de- fendant, ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱŘŖŖ- ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ-¢-count sentences, ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ -¢-count sentences and then ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖȱ¢ǯȱ The ¢ȱ Esposito’s ȱȱ before im- sentence, the ȱȱ¢ȱdetermined that Esposito’s total punishment should be life imprisonment. The Ȃȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ a de facto term of life imprisonment before ȱ prison terms on each count. The district court ¡¢ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ request to set his imprisonment based on his 28-¢ȱlife ex- ¢ǰȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱthat ȱȱ ȱȬ ȱȱȱsentence than that. The district ȱ ȱ also alert to this court’s directive ȱȱȱ ȱȬ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ them. Still, the district court concluded that the defendant’s ȱȱȱ—ǰȱǰȱǰȱǰȱ ȱ ȱ — ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ £, 8 No. 20-1124 and that Esposito’s crimes did ȱ ȱȱshorter sentence equal to his ȱ¡¢ ȱȱȱȱ. The district court further ȱ that it ȱ ȱ Ȭ ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢, and the court stated ¢ȱȱȱȱnever be around chil- ȱ . So ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ the court meant to impose ȱ ¢ȱ life sentence. Indeed, at oral ar- ȱȱǰȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ made it clear that ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯ 1 Bȱȱȱ¢ȱ¡ȱ ȱȱȱȱ in prison, the districȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȗȱ ś ŗǯŘǻǼǰȱ ȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ sentence. So, the district court did not ȱ¢ȱȱǯ Esposito ȱȱȱȱȱppl¢ȱȱǰȱ - step sequence that neither 18 U.S.C. ȗȱřśśřǻǼȱȱȱȬ ȱ ȱ ǯ The text of § ś ŗǯŘ(b) provides that the court shall determine the total punishment ȃȄȱ shall impose that total punishment on each such count. That provi- sion does not ¢ȱ“and thenȄ ȱ¡¢ȱȱȱȱcalcula- tive process the defendant contends. Rather, § ś ŗǯŘ(b) ȱ ȱȱȱȱcircumstance different than here. This case fits better ȱȗȱś ŗǯŘǻǼǰȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ so ut ¢ȱ ȱ count ¡¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ out a term of de facto life imprisonment ¢ȱȱȱthe con- secutive and concurrent sentences imposed here. 2 1 ȱument at ŝDZśŖ. 2 It also ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱǰȱDe la Torreǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ No. 20-1124 9 III We conclude that the district court did not err ȱim- ȱȂȱǰȱȱ ȱAFFIRM. than here. 327 F.3d at 609, 611. De la Torre predated United States v. Booker, śŚřȱǯǯȱŘŘŖȱǻŘŖŖśǼǰȱ ȱȱ ȱȱovision of the federal sen- ȱ that required sentences to ȱ ȱȱȱ Ȭ ȱǰȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱfederal appeals courts ȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱǯȱIdǯȱȱŘŚśǯ
Document Info
Docket Number： 20-1124
Judges： Brennan
Filed Date： 6/11/2021
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 6/11/2021