Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Dean v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Dean v. United States
Reference: 15-9260
Issue: Criminal sentencing
Term: 2016
Important Dates
Argued: February 28, 2017
Decided:April 3, 2017
Outcome
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded
Vote
8-0 to reverse and remand
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan
Concurring
None
Dissenting
None


Dean v. United States is a case argued during the October 2016 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on February 28, 2017. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. On April 3, 2017, in a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Eighth Circuit.

A federal law, 18 U.S.C. §924, makes it a separate offense to use or possess a firearm in connection with either a drug trafficking offense or other violent offense under law. A §924 offense carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for the first conviction and 25 years for a second. These sentences must be given in addition to, and consecutive to, any sentence imposed for any crimes committed in addition to the §924 crimes; these convictions for non-§924 crimes are called predicate convictions. The Supreme Court held that a sentencing judge may consider the impact of the mandatory minimum sentences required under federal law for violations of 18 U.S.C. §924 when issuing sentences for predicate convictions. This holding reversed an Eighth Circuit precedent, United States v. Hatcher, that required a sentencing judge to issue sentences for predicate convictions without any consideration of, or sentences imposed for, violations of §924.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: A defendant was convicted of multiple felonies of federal law, including two counts of violating provisions of 18 U.S.C. §924. At his sentencing, the defendant requested the judge reduce the recommended sentence under federal sentencing guidelines for his other, non-§924 felony convictions as his convictions under §924 carried a combined mandatory 30-year sentence. The judge refused, citing a precedent of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that prohibited the court from exercising such discretion.
  • The issue: Is the Eighth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Hatcher in violation of the statutory discretion afforded to district judges under the federal sentencing guidelines for crimes arising under, or attending, 18 U.S.C. §924?
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case in an 8-0 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts.


    • In brief: After a conviction on multiple federal charges, including two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. §924, Levon Dean, Jr., petitioned a sentencing judge to sentence him below the 84-105 months' recommended imprisonment under federal sentencing guidelines for the non-§924 charges because the §924 charges carried a mandatory 30-year sentence. The district court refused, citing an Eighth Circuit precedent precluding the district court from exercising such discretion. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence. Argument in the case was held on February 28, 2017.

    You can review the Eighth Circuit's opinion here.[1]

    Click on the tabs below to learn more about this Supreme Court case.

    Case

    Background

    In April 2013, Levon Dean, Jr. was part of a group of individuals that committed a series of robberies in Sioux City, Iowa. In every instance, Dean utilized a firearm. After a trial in federal district court, a jury convicted Dean on numerous charges related to the robberies, including two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(A). That provision of federal law requires a sentence of at least five years if the defendant used a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C. § 924(C)(i) however states that "in the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this subsection, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years." Under federal sentencing guidelines, the parties agreed that a recommendation of 84 to 105 months’ imprisonment on the non-§924 charges under the guidelines was justified.[2]

    At his sentencing, Dean requested that the district court sentence below the guideline range and to impose a one-day concurrent sentence for the non-§924 convictions because the Section 924(C) counts carried mandatory five- and 25-year prison sentences to run consecutively. The district court at sentencing indicated that there was no room for modification based on a precedent from the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, United States v. Hatcher, that required the court to consider his other convictions separately from the Section 924(c) counts. The court sentenced Dean to 400 months of imprisonment (33.3 years). On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentence and rejected Dean’s claim that the district court had discretion under federal sentencing guidelines to impose only a one-day sentence for his other felonies.[1][3]

    Petitioner's challenge

    Levon Dean, Jr., the petitioner, challenged the Eighth Circuit's holding that district court judges within the circuit court's jurisdiction are unable to examine felony convictions separately from convictions under 924(C) for the purposes of sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines.

    Certiorari granted

    On May 4, 2016, Levon Dean, Jr., the petitioner, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Dean's certiorari request on October 28, 2016, limited to question 2 presented by the petition. Argument in the case was held on February 28, 2017.

    Arguments


    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "Whether, Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 131 s. Ct. 1229, 179 I. Ed. 2d 196 (2011) overruled United States v. Hatcher, 501 f.3d 931 (8th cir. 2007) and related opinions from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to the extent those opinions limit the district court's discretion to consider the mandatory consecutive sentence or sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in determining the appropriate sentence for the felony serving as the basis for the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions."[4]


    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    Decision

    In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court. In the opinion, the court held that sentencing judges may consider the impact of mandatory sentences for crimes committed under 18 U.S.C. §924 when issuing sentences for crimes committed in addition to the §924 crimes; these other crimes are called predicate offenses.[7]

    Opinion

    In his opinion for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Roberts indicated that federal laws governing sentencing did not require the rigid construction that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals mandated in their circuit. The chief justice noted that "Section 3553(a) of Title 18 specifies the factors courts are to consider in imposing a sentence. The list of factors is preceded by what is known as the parsimony principle, a broad command that instructs courts to 'impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with' the four identified purposes of sentencing: just punishment, deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation. ... A sentencing court is then directed to take into account 'the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,' as well as 'the need for the sentence imposed' to serve the four overarching aims of sentencing. ... The court must also consider the pertinent guidelines and policies adopted by the Sentencing Commission."[7]

    In consideration of these goals, the chief justice indicated that the argument advanced by the government, in consideration of the Eighth Circuit's precedent in United States v. Hatcher, did not mandate the conclusion the government reached. In his words,[7]

    “

    As a general matter, the foregoing provisions permit a court imposing a sentence on one count of conviction to consider sentences imposed on other counts. ... Dean committed the two robberies at issue here when he was 23 years old. That he will not be released from prison until well after his fiftieth birthday because of the §924(c) convictions surely bears on whether—in connection with his predicate crimes—still more incarceration is necessary to protect the public. Likewise, in considering 'the need for the sentence imposed ... to afford adequate deterrence' ... the District Court could not reasonably ignore the deterrent effect of Dean’s 30-year mandatory minimum. According to the Government, this is not how sentencing is meant to work. Rather, district courts should calculate the appropriate term of imprisonment for each individual offense. That determination, insists the Government, disregards whatever sentences the defendant may also face on other counts. Not until deciding whether to run sentences consecutively or concurrently—i.e., not until applying §3584—should a district court consider the effect of those other sentences. ... Nothing in the law requires such an approach. The Government states that the §3553(a) factors are 'normally relevant in determining the total length of imprisonment' ... No doubt they are. But there is no reason they may not also be considered at the front end, when determining a prison sentence for each individual offense in a multicount case. ... The Government speaks of Congress’s intent to prevent district courts from bottoming out sentences for predicate §924(c) offenses whenever they think a mandatory minimum under §924(c) is already punishment enough. But no such intent finds expression in the language of §924(c). That language simply requires any mandatory minimum under §924(c) to be imposed 'in addition to' the sentence for the predicate offense, and to run consecutively to that sentence. Nothing in those requirements prevents a sentencing court from considering a mandatory minimum under §924(c) when calculating an appropriate sentence for the predicate offense. [8]

    		”

    Accordingly, the court reversed the Eighth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case back to the Eighth Circuit to review the district court's sentence in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in this case.[7]

    Concurring opinions

    There were no concurring opinions filed.

    Dissenting opinions

    There were no dissenting opinions filed.

    The opinion


    Filings

    The U.S. Supreme Court granted Dean's certiorari request on October 28, 2016, limited to question 2 presented by the petition.

    Merits filings

    Parties' briefs

    • Levon Dean, Jr., the petitioner, filed a merits brief on December 16, 2016.
    • The United States of America, the respondent, filed a merits brief on January 19, 2017.

    Amicus curiae briefs

    • Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al.

    Certiorari filings

    Parties' filings

    • Levon Dean, Jr., the petitioner, filed a petition for certiorari on May 4, 2016.
    • The United States of America, the respondent, filed a brief in opposition to certiorari on September 9, 2016, after three orders extending the time to file a response were granted by the court.

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, United States v. Levon Dean, Jr., and Jamal Dean, December 29, 2015
    2. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Sixth
    3. ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Argument preview: Justices to consider limits of sentencing discretion under advisory guidelines," February 21, 2017
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Dean v. United States, October 28, 2016
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Dean v. United States, argued February 28, 2017
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Dean v. United States, argued February 28, 2017
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Supreme Court of the United States, Levon Dean, Jr., v. United States, decided April 3, 2017
    8. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Dean_v._United_States&oldid=8891629"