United States v. Shawn Sorensen

Citation: 893 F.3d 1060Docket: 17-1984

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; June 26, 2018; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Shawn Russell Sorensen appeals his conviction and life sentence without parole following a jury trial. He contends that the district court erred by not excluding the government's fingerprint expert testimony, misclassifying a misstatement regarding his prior offense as clerical rather than substantive, and violating his Eighth Amendment rights with the life sentence. The case originated from a search warrant executed on a postal package containing narcotics, which led to the arrest of Gayle Hartz, who received the package on Sorensen's behalf. Text messages between Hartz and Sorensen indicated their communication about the package. Following Hartz's arrest, law enforcement surveilled Sorensen, leading to his arrest at Hartz's residence where he possessed $15,700 in cash. Subsequent searches of Sorensen's home and vehicle revealed methamphetamine, firearms, and evidence linking him to the intercepted package, including a mailing label with a similar return address and saved contacts on his cell phones that matched the details of the package and sender. The court ultimately affirmed Sorensen's conviction and sentence.

Inspection findings revealed text messages between Hartz and Sorensen about an intercepted package, along with evidence that Sorensen contacted the USPS hotline regarding the package's status. USPS records indicated multiple packages were sent from Arizona to Hartz in Sioux Falls and Luverne, with flight records showing Sorensen's travel from Sioux Falls to Phoenix coinciding with package deliveries. The jury trial began in October 2016, where Hartz testified about her history with Sorensen, stating they used methamphetamine together and that she accepted packages for him in exchange for drugs and money, receiving around six packages containing methamphetamine.

A forensic analyst identified Sorensen's latent prints on the intercepted package's tape. Sorensen did not challenge this testimony pretrial or during the trial. In September 2016, the government informed Sorensen about seeking enhanced sentencing based on two prior drug felony convictions from 2002 and 2008. After the jury's guilty verdict, the government corrected the description of the Arizona conviction in April 2017, changing it from "transporting or selling" to "possession," and added the case number. Sorensen objected, claiming insufficient notice due to these changes, but the district court deemed it a clerical correction since the original information contained accurate details regarding the conviction.

Consequently, Sorensen was sentenced to life in prison for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and 120 months for firearm possession, both sentences to run concurrently. The court will review any unchallenged expert testimony for plain error, requiring Sorensen to demonstrate the error's clarity, impact on his substantial rights, and effect on the judicial process's integrity.

A forensic latent print analyst testified at trial regarding fingerprints found on the packing tape of a package delivered to Hartz. Sorensen contended that the analyst's testimony did not meet the Daubert standard for admissibility and claimed the district court should have excluded it. However, the court found no need to evaluate the Daubert issue since Sorensen could not demonstrate that the expert's testimony adversely impacted his substantial rights during the trial. He argued that the testimony was misleading and that the jury's conviction based on this evidence violated his due process rights. Nonetheless, the court determined that the impact of the expert's testimony was minimal compared to the ample evidence supporting the conviction, including Hartz's testimony, investigative findings linking Sorensen to shipments, and incriminating data from Sorensen's phones. The district court did not err in admitting this expert testimony.

Regarding sentencing enhancements, under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), a defendant faces a mandatory life sentence for having two prior felony drug convictions. The government notified Sorensen of its intention to use two prior drug convictions for this enhancement. After trial, Sorensen pointed out errors in the government's initial information regarding his Arizona conviction, which the government later corrected. Sorensen then argued, for the first time on appeal, that his South Dakota conviction should not count as a predicate offense because it lacks a record of drug quantity, thus failing to qualify as a federal felony drug offense. This claim is reviewed for plain error since it was raised for the first time on appeal.

Sorensen's reliance on Carachuri-Rosendo is inappropriate for his case. Carachuri-Rosendo addressed the definition of aggravated felony concerning immigration, specifically requiring an actual recidivist finding for a conviction to qualify as a felony under 21 U.S.C. 841(b). In Sorensen's case, there was no question about whether his South Dakota conviction included a finding of recidivism; the focus was instead on whether it constituted a 'felony drug offense' under 21 U.S.C. 802(44). Sorensen's conviction for possession of a controlled substance, punishable by over one year (he received a ten-year sentence with eight years suspended), meets the statutory definition of a prior felony drug offense. The district court correctly ruled without plain error.

The absence of drug quantity in the Minnehaha County records is irrelevant to the analysis since the focus is not on the potential federal prosecution outcome. Sorensen's arguments regarding the timing of the information and amendments made post-trial are inadequate because the information filed under 21 U.S.C. 851(a) was sufficient. The requirements for a sentencing enhancement based on prior convictions necessitate compliance with 21 U.S.C. 851(a), which the government fulfilled in this case.

Sorensen's comparisons to Haltiwanger and Simmons, where enhancements were reversed due to the record of conviction analysis, are not applicable as those cases involved hypothetical recidivists, unlike Sorensen's situation. Additionally, reliance on Sanchez is inappropriate as it dealt with a different statute regarding 'serious drug offense.' The government must file a written notice of prior convictions before trial, and clerical errors in this information can be amended before sentencing, as long as the defendant has reasonable notice of the government's intent regarding the conviction.

The information filed prior to trial contained a clerical error, mislabeling an Arizona conviction as one for transporting or selling instead of possession. However, it accurately identified the state, county, and date of conviction, providing reasonable notice of the government's intent to use this conviction. The amendment made before sentencing corrected this clerical mistake, which is not considered reversible error. The district court's ruling contained no plain error.

Regarding Sorensen's mandatory life sentence without parole, he argues it violates the Eighth Amendment due to gross disproportionality and lack of consideration for his individual characteristics. Eighth Amendment challenges to sentencing are reviewed de novo, focusing on whether the comparison of the crime to the sentence indicates gross disproportionality. Such violations are rare, particularly for noncapital sentences. The court has consistently upheld that mandatory life sentences under 21 U.S.C. 841(b) do not breach the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Given the seriousness of Sorensen’s offense and his history of felony convictions, the case does not represent an 'extremely rare' instance of unconstitutional sentencing, aligning instead with the statutory framework. The court affirms the ruling.