United States v. Gerard Hawkins and Monique Hawkins
Docket: 05-4311, 05-4243
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; March 9, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
Defendants Gerard and Monique Hawkins were convicted of federal mail fraud and related offenses for defrauding mortgage lenders through inflated property appraisals. Following a remand for resentencing due to the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, they received prison sentences of 63 and 45 months, respectively. Their appeal focuses on the determination of the loss amount caused by their fraudulent activities. The indictment cited nine properties, showing a loss of $736,700, while a presentence investigation report identified ten additional properties with an estimated loss of $311,211. The sentences were based on the aggregate loss, which could have been lower had the judge not considered the additional properties.
Gerard Hawkins's attorney argued that during sentencing, the judge erroneously stated that the jury itself had determined the loss to exceed $1 million, failing to individually assess the loss from properties not presented during the trial. However, the defense did not effectively challenge the accuracy of the presentence report, which allowed the judge to rely on it. Monique Hawkins's attorney claimed that only a jury could determine factual findings affecting sentencing, a position the court rejected, reaffirming that under the Booker framework, the judge has the authority to make necessary factual determinations to establish the sentencing range, which may then be adjusted in compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The trial lawyers for the Hawkinses failed to raise a critical objection regarding the unreliability of the presentence investigation report's loss estimate, instead focusing erroneously on the principle that only a jury can determine facts affecting sentencing. This oversight suggests that the lawyers' biases negatively impacted their clients' defense. Although Gerard Hawkins's appellate attorney argues that his client should be allowed to challenge the sentence on the correct grounds, the original argument presented in the district court did not sufficiently alert the judge to the specific complaint regarding the loss estimate, resulting in the forfeiture of the new objection. The judge assumed the defendants accepted the report's accuracy, and without specific objections, had no obligation to verify it. While plain error review is possible, no concrete errors in the report were cited in Hawkins's appeal, which merely claimed flaws without detail. Additionally, Monique Hawkins's argument misrepresents the legal standard, incorrectly attributing the dissenting Justices' view in Booker as the majority holding. The court affirmed the decisions made in the lower court.
