Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; October 29, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Jerry Wayne Mayfield appeals his 262-month sentence for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, following a retrial after his initial conviction was reversed due to a trial severance issue. The initial indictment, filed on March 25, 1997, charged Mayfield with possession of 552.8 grams of cocaine base, and a prior felony narcotics conviction was later established against him. After a joint trial with co-defendant Manyale D. Gilbert, both were found guilty, but the Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction, citing the need for separate trials to mitigate prejudice.
Upon retrial, Mayfield was again found guilty. He challenged the application of an enhanced penalty under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A), arguing that the government failed to refile the information regarding his prior felony conviction before the second trial, which he claimed violated his due process rights. The district court, however, ruled that Mayfield had sufficient notice of the prior conviction and subsequently accepted his guilty plea to that charge. The court determined that the mandatory minimum sentence applied, leading to a total offense level of 38 and a criminal history category of II, resulting in a sentencing range of 262 to 327 months. The court ultimately imposed a 262-month sentence, a 10-year supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Mayfield's appeal contends that the failure to refile the information impacted the legality of his sentence. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.
The sufficiency of a section 851(a) sentencing information is reviewed de novo, as established in precedent. Mayfield was convicted of possessing with intent to distribute 522.8 grams of cocaine base, which under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) mandates a minimum 10-year sentence, increasing to 20 years if the defendant has a prior felony drug conviction. Additionally, a term of supervised release of at least 10 years is required for such defendants. The government must comply with 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) to enhance a sentence based on prior convictions, necessitating that the U.S. attorney files an information and provides notice of the previous convictions before trial or plea. While section 851(a) does not explicitly require the government to refile information or give notice before a retrial, both the language and purpose of the statute imply that the original notice suffices. The statute aims to ensure reasonable notice and an opportunity to challenge prior convictions, enabling informed decisions regarding guilty pleas. Consequently, because the information and notice were provided before Mayfield's first trial, there was no need for re-filing or re-notification before his second trial, supported by case law.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed a case involving the defendant, Williams, who faced charges of conspiracy and attempted possession with intent to distribute marijuana, violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. After a series of trials, including one conviction that was reversed and a mistrial due to juror misconduct, a guilty verdict was reached at the third trial. The government had initially filed an information of a prior felony drug conviction before the first trial but did not refile it before the third trial. The district court declined to use this prior conviction for sentencing enhancement, leading the government to appeal. The Eleventh Circuit found that the government's initial filing complied with 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) as it was filed before trial, and there was no statutory requirement for it to be refiled before retrials, satisfying due process rights.
Regarding sentencing, the district court applied a two-level enhancement based on Mayfield's possession of a firearm during the drug offense, leading to a total offense level of 38. It was unclear if the jury had found the facts supporting this enhancement. The court examined whether the principles established in Blakely v. Washington, which require that any factors increasing a sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury, necessitated vacating Mayfield's sentence. Blakely established that the "statutory maximum" is defined as the highest sentence a judge can impose based solely on jury findings or defendant admissions. The court also referenced United States v. Ameline, where a sentence was vacated due to the judge’s findings on sentencing factors not submitted to the jury. The analysis indicates that Mayfield's sentence might also require vacating and remanding for resentencing based on similar reasoning.
Mayfield was sentenced to 262 months, which is at the upper range of 210-262 months for a total offense level of 36 and criminal history category II, even without a two-level firearm enhancement. The district court's decision to impose this sentence is consistent with the jury's verdict and does not violate the principles established in Blakely, as the court could have lawfully sentenced Mayfield to 262 months based solely on the jury's findings. The court's actual intent regarding sentencing without the enhancement remains unclear, but the sentence is upheld as it falls within the Guidelines range. Furthermore, the government is not obligated to refile prior felony drug conviction notices before retrials under 21 U.S.C. 851(a), and the district court correctly applied enhanced penalties under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A). The appellate panel affirms the district court's judgment, noting that a change in Mayfield's attorney post-remand does not impact the proceedings, which continued under the same indictment and section 851(a) information.
