934 F.3d 783
8th Cir.2019Background
- Defendant Alvin Felicianosoto was arrested en route to a controlled methamphetamine buy; officers found ~107.4 g pure meth on his person and additional meth, packaging, and a scale in his garage.
- Multiple witnesses (a cooperating buyer, a regular purchaser, and two suppliers) testified that Felicianosoto bought, held, and sold large quantities of methamphetamine over 2015–2016; text messages corroborated sales to a purchaser (Parrow).
- Felicianosoto testified that he primarily stored Ventura’s meth and denied buying from the suppliers, denied selling to Parrow, and denied knowledge of drugs in his garage, but admitted holding meth found on his person when arrested.
- Trial counsel repeatedly conceded guilt on the possession-with-intent-to-distribute count while contesting the conspiracy count; jury convicted on both counts and attributed 50+ g actual meth (possession count) and 500+ g mixture (conspiracy count).
- At sentencing the court applied a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement for perjured testimony, calculated a Guidelines range of 168–210 months (total offense level 34, CH II), and imposed concurrent 210-month terms (each with a 10-year mandatory minimum).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s concession of guilt violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment autonomy under McCoy | Felicianosoto: counsel’s concession on possession counts violated his right to control the objective of his defense and warrants reversal under McCoy | Government: no McCoy violation because defendant did not expressly assert innocence in response to counsel’s concessions; defendant himself admitted holding meth at trial | No McCoy error on direct appeal; record lacks express assertion of innocence so claim may be raised later via § 2255 |
| Whether district court erred in applying § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement for perjury | Felicianosoto: court failed to specifically find his false testimony was willful | Government: testimony directly conflicted with other evidence; willfulness reasonably inferred | Enhancement affirmed; district court’s findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether district court procedurally erred by failing to consider § 3553(a) factors | Felicianosoto: court did not adequately consider statutory sentencing factors | Government: court identified permissible factors (perjury, refusal to accept responsibility) and need not mechanically recite every factor | No plain error; court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors |
| Whether the 210-month within-Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable | Felicianosoto: court gave undue weight to his allocution and statements at sentencing | Government: sentence is within Guidelines and defendant’s conduct and false statements justified sentence | Sentence affirmed as substantively reasonable; presumption of reasonableness applies to within-Guidelines sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018) (client autonomy to maintain innocence is decision reserved to defendant; improper counsel concession can be structural error)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (counsel’s concession without express consent not automatically ineffective where defendant is unresponsive)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance framework requiring prejudice analysis)
- United States v. Merrell, 842 F.3d 577 (8th Cir. 2016) (plain-error standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- United States v. Beattie, 919 F.3d 1110 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for obstruction enhancement: de novo review of applicability, clear-error for facts)