United States v. Sawyers, CR 15-00070-RSWL-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN SAWYERS, a.k.a. "B", Defendant.

CR 15-00070-RSWL-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

November 17, 2016

ORDER Re: 21 U.S.C. § 851 PROVE-UP

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 4, 2016, Defendant Brian Sawyers ("Defendant") was found guilty of two counts of distribution of crack cocaine. On April 24, 2015, the Government filed an Information ("Info.") pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, to establish prior convictions [39]. On October 25, 2016, Defendant filed a Response ("Resp.") to the Information [139]. On November 7, 2016, the Government filed a Reply to Defendant's Response [140]. On November 15, 2016, the Court held a prove-up hearing where all parties were provided an opportunity to address the Court and provide any arguments and evidence in support of their positions. The Court, having reviewed all papers and arguments submitted pertaining to the Information, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: the Government has met its evidentiary burden in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the convictions in Counts One, Two, and Three in the Information occurred. Counts One, Two, and Three may be used to enhance Defendant's sentencing.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

21 U.S.C. § 851(a) states that there shall not be increased punishment under this section unless the Government satisfies the four procedural requirements in Section 851(a) that the Information be in writing, be filed with the court and served on the defendant or his counsel, be filed and served before trial or before a guilty plea, and the substance of the information must identify the previous conviction(s). U.S. v. Severino, 316 F.3d 939, 943 (9th Cir. 2003). If the person denies any of the allegations in the Information or alleges any conviction is invalid, he must file a written response. 28 U.S.C. § 851(c)(1). The court shall hold a hearing to determine any issues raised in the response and except as provided in Section 851(c)(2), the Government has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on any issue of fact. Id.If a person claims that any of the convictions alleged in the Information were obtained in violation of the Constitution of the United States, he

"shall set forth his claim, and the factual basis therefor, with particularity in his response to the information. The person shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence on any issue of fact raised by the response. Any challenge to a prior conviction, not raised by response to the information before an increased sentence is imposed in reliance thereon, shall be waived unless good cause be shown for failure to make a timely challenge."

21 U.S.C. § 851(c)(2). Section 851(e) goes on to say that "[n]o person who stands convicted of an offense under this part may challenge the validity of any prior conviction alleged under this section which occurred more than five years before the date of the information alleging such prior conviction."

B. Analysis

1. The Government Must Prove the Convictions Occurred Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

If a defendant alleges that prior convictions sought to be used to enhance his sentence are invalid, the Government bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. U.S. v. Luna, 768 F. Supp. 705, 708 (N.D. Cal. 1991). The Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was convicted ofeach Count in the Information. Id. at 709. While the Government does bear this burden of proof if the defendant challenges the "accuracy or authenticity" of the judgment, if a defendant challenges the constitutionality of the actual procedure that led to the conviction, then the burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence there was a constitutional violation. Id. at 710.

To determine who bears the burden of proof, the Court must determine whether Defendant questioned the fact that he was actually convicted, the constitutionality of the convictions, or both. During the prove-up hearing and in Defendant's Response, Defendant denied the prior convictions. Resp. 2:2-4. However in Defendant's Response, he goes on to say that he challenges the constitutionality of the convictions. Id. at 2:4-6. While the Government puts forth a strong argument that Defendant did not challenge the actual convictions, even if the Court found that Defendant did challenge the actual convictions, Defendant did not set forth what invalidity challenges he had to the actual convictions. And the Government nevertheless proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the convictions in Counts One, Two, and Three actually occurred.

At the prove-up hearing, the Government offered Exhibit 1 into evidence which was received and admitted. Exhibit 1 contained fingerprints and booking photos of Defendant from his arrest on February 26,2015. Ex. 1 at USAO_SAWYERS-00789-00793. As to Count One, the Government provided a certified copy of the Minute Order from a pre-trial conference on November 28, 1988, a certified copy of the Minute Order of Defendant's sentencing on March 3, 1989, a certified copy of Defendant's probation violation on August 31, 1989, a certified copy of the Abstract of the Judgment on September 19, 1989, a certified copy of the Information on October 31, 1988, and a certified copy of the Felony Complaint on October 17, 1988. Id. at USAO_SAWYERS-00794-00809. As to Count Two, the Government provided a certified copy of the judgment and sentence along with fingerprints and a photo of Defendant on January 28, 1992. Id. at USAO_SAWYERS-00810-00817. Additionally, in the Government's Reply, the Government provided a printed copy of the docket entries for the case. Reply, Ex. 1. Defendant himself provided the Eighth Circuit's opinion affirming his sentence of Count Two. Ex. A. As to Count Three, the Government provided a printed copy of public information on data of inmates, a photo and fingerprints of Defendant, and a certified copy of the judgment on July 11, 2003. Ex. 1 at USAO_SAWYERS-00818-00835. In the Government's Reply, the Government also provided the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge who questioned Defendant about his guilty plea, the acceptance of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations by the District Court Judge, and aprinted copy of the docket entries for the conviction in Count Three. Reply, Exs. 2-3. A judgment of a prior conviction is sufficient to prove the conviction occurred. Luna, 768 F. Supp. at 709. Moreover, docket entries which reflect guilty pleas, sentencing, and jury verdicts may also support a finding that a conviction occurred. U.S. v. Jones, 671 F. Supp. 2d 182, 185 (D. Me. 2009). As Defendant did not assert any specific challenges that the convictions actually occurred, the Government has met its burden.

2. The Government Provided Defendant Adequate Notice as to Count One in the Information

Defendant has failed to put forth sufficient evidence that the Government did not provide adequate notice of Count One in the Information. The purpose of § 851(a)(1) is to ensure "proper notice so a defendant is able to challenge the information." U.S. v. Sperow, 494 F.3d 1223, 1226 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting U.S. v. Hamilton, 208 F.3d 1165, 1168 (9th Cir. 2000)). The Government needs to include sufficient facts "so that a rational defendant can identify the prior conviction." Severino, 316 F.3d at 943 (holding inaccurate information as to the state in which a prior conviction took place provided the defendant adequate notice). Here too, it is correct that the Government failed to provide the case number of Count One in the Information. However, the Information did include the conviction date, the location of the court where theconviction took place, and the violation that led to the conviction. Info. 1:27-2:3. Other courts where the Government included the wrong date and no case number, see U.S. v. King, 127 F.3d 483, 489 (6th Cir. 1997), wrong offense, see U.S. Steen, 55 F.3d 1022, 1025-28 (5th Cir. 1995), and wrong statutory section, see U.S. v. Campbell, 980 F.2d 245, 251-52 (4th Cir. 1992) found adequate notice if the information "definitively identified the prior conviction." Severino, 316 F.3d at 944.

Moreover, while Defendant argues that the Government failed to provide adequate notice as to Count One, in Defendant's Response, he argues that if the Court finds the Government did provide adequate notice as to Count One, then he challenges that conviction on the same basis as Count Three, that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. Resp. 3:26-27. If Defendant really could not identify the conviction the Government set forth in the Information, Defendant would have been unable to assert a challenge to the constitutionality of the conviction based on a guilty plea that was not knowing and voluntary. It is clear that the Government put forth more than sufficient information to put Defendant on notice as to which conviction the Government identified and Defendant did not have any trouble in understanding which conviction the Government identified. See Severino, 316 F.3d at 943-44. Therefore, the"statutory purpose of providing defendant notice has been satisfied." Id.

3. 21 U.S.C. § 851(e)'s Five-Year Statute of Limitations Precludes Defendant's Challenges to his Prior Convictions

21 U.S.C. § 851(e) states that a person who is convicted of an offense under the section may not challenge the validity of any prior conviction alleged under this section if the conviction occurred more than five years before the date of the information that alleges the prior conviction. Defendant has failed to put forth binding case law that would persuade this Court to deviate from current binding case law that states that 21 U.S.C. § 851(e)'s five-year statute of limitations is constitutionally valid.

In U.S. v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1438 (9th Cir. 1994), the defendant alleged that 21 U.S.C. § 851(e) violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution because he was...