Davis v. United States

	Davis v. United States
	Term: 2019
	Important Dates
	Decided: March 23, 2020
	Outcome
	Vacated and remanded
	Vote
	Per curiam

Davis v. United States is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States during the court's October 2019-2020 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

The case was not argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court released a per curiam opinion on March 23, 2020, vacating and remanding the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's decision. The court held, according to SCOTUSblog, that "there is no legal basis for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s practice of declining to review certain unpreserved factual arguments for plain error."^[1] Click here for more information on the opinion.

HIGHLIGHTS

The case: A federal grand jury indicted Charles Davis Jr. for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for possessing drugs with the intent to distribute them. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas sentenced Davis to four years and nine months in prison. The court ordered consecutive sentences for pending charges against Davis at the state level. Davis did not object to his sentence before the district court. He then appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 5th Circuit did not employ plain error review and the district court's decision. Davis appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.^[2]^[3]

The issue: "Whether factual error is categorically immune from plain error review?"

The outcome: In a per curiam opinion, SCOTUS and the 5th Circuit's decision, holding "there is no legal basis for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s practice of declining to review certain unpreserved factual arguments for plain error."^[1]

You can review the lower court's opinion here.

Timeline

The following timeline details key events in this case:

March 23, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded the 5th Circuit's decision in a per curiam opinion.
July 29, 2019: Charles Davis, Jr., the petitioner, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.
April 30, 2019: The 5th Circuit affirmed the Northern District of Texas' ruling.

Background

Charles Davis, Jr., exhibited a pattern of illegal possession of controlled substances and firearms. In 2016, police found controlled substances and a firearm in Davis' car after conducting a stop. A federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas indicted Davis for being a felon in possession of a firearm and for possessing drugs with the intent to distribute them. Davis pleaded guilty to both counts. A presentence report indicated four pending state charges—two from the 2016 stop and two from a 2015 stop.^[2]^[3]

The Northern District of Texas sentenced Davis to two concurrent terms of four years and nine months in prison. The court ordered the sentence to be served concurrently with any state sentence that might arise from the pending charges related to the 2016 stop, but ordered consecutive sentences for any other pending charges, including those related to the 2015 stop. Davis did not object to his sentence before the district court.^[2]^[3]

Davis appealed his sentence, arguing the U.S. district court was wrong failed to recommend consecutive sentences to his pending charges. He argued his state offenses and federal offenses should have run concurrently, not consecutively. According to SCOTUS' opinion from this case, "When a criminal defendant fails to raise an argument in the district court, an appellate court ordinarily may review the issue only for plain error." The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit did not employ plain error review and affirmed the district court's decision.^[2]^[3]

Davis petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, arguing the 5th Circuit's decision conflicted with similar decisions from other U.S. courts of appeals.^[2]

Questions presented

The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

Questions presented: Whether factual error is categorically immune from plain error review?^[2]

Outcome

In a per curiam opinion, the court vacated and remanded the 5th Circuit's ruling. A per curiam decision is issued collectively by the court. The authorship is not indicated. Click here for more information.

SCOTUS held, "Davis challenges the Fifth Circuit’s outlier practice of refusing to review certain unpreserved factual arguments for plain error. We agree with Davis, and we vacate the judgment of the Fifth Circuit."^[3]