United States v. Anderson
394 U.S. App. D.C. 168
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Anderson was stopped for a traffic violation; a gun was found in the car and no fingerprints were recovered.
- Trial counsel previously miscalculated Anderson's Sentencing Guidelines range, suggesting a fifteen-year minimum, but the error was not corrected before trial.
- Anderson initially agreed to a plea, but after learning the corrected range he elected to go to trial.
- During sentencing, the court imposed the low end of the Guidelines range (235 months) and expressed difficulty in departing from the range.
- Anderson argued the court misread its discretion and failed to consider his allocution and exculpatory statements at sentencing.
- The court granted an evidentiary hearing on Anderson’s Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claim and vacated his sentence to allow resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IAC claim viability | Anderson claims counsel's miscalculation prejudiced him | Government contends record insufficient to show prejudice | Remand for evidentiary hearing on IAC claim |
| Constructive possession | Record shows proximity and conduct could establish possession | Record insufficient to prove conduct linking to contraband | Record insufficient; remand for evidentiary development on IAC assessment |
| Sentencing discretion and allocution | Court treated Guidelines as presumptive and ignored allocution | Rita v. United States limits presumptions; allocution may be considered | Plain error identified; vacate sentence and remand for proper consideration of allocution and methodology |
Key Cases Cited
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (no presumption of reasonableness for Guidelines sentence in district court)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (appellate review of sentencing; information may be considered broadly)
- United States v. Shabban, 612 F.3d 693 (D.C.Cir.2010) (IAC standard and prejudice framework under Strickland)
- United States v. Saro, 24 F.3d 283 (D.C.Cir.1994) (plain-error standard for sentencing; prejudice required)
- United States v. Rashad, 331 F.3d 908 (D.C.Cir.2003) (quotations on evidentiary review for sentencing errors)
- United States v. Mouling, 557 F.3d 658 (D.C.Cir.2009) (settled law on timing of error analysis for trial vs appeal)
- United States v. Taylor, 937 F.2d 676 (D.C.Cir.1991) (court may consider broad information for sentencing)
- United States v. Doe, 934 F.2d 353 (D.C.Cir.1991) (allocution and sentencing considerations)
- United States v. Ayers, 428 F.3d 312 (D.C.Cir.2005) (mitigating information relevant to §3661 analysis)