United States v. Anthony Eugene Doyle
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9156
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Anthony Doyle pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute >50 grams of cocaine base and faced a 10-year mandatory minimum; guideline range calculated at 262–327 months.
- At sentencing (Dec. 2011) the district court asked defense counsel but not Doyle personally if he wished to speak (no allocution); counsel argued for and obtained the low-end sentence of 262 months.
- Doyle did not object at sentencing and later filed a §2255 alleging ineffective assistance for failure to appeal; the district court granted relief on that claim and applied the Phillips remedy, vacating and then re-imposing the same 262-month sentence to allow a timely direct appeal.
- On direct appeal Doyle argued the district court’s failure to permit allocution violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(4)(A)(ii); because he did not object at sentencing, review is for plain error.
- The central legal question: whether the pre-Booker Eleventh Circuit rule that refused to presume prejudice when a defendant received the bottom-of-range sentence survives in the post-Booker advisory-guidelines world.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to permit allocution is plain error affecting substantial rights | Doyle: allocution right violated; prejudice should be presumed even though sentence was at low end | Gov: no plain-error prejudice because sentence was at bottom of guideline range (pre-Booker exception) | Court: allocution error plain; prejudice presumed because guidelines are advisory and a lower sentence was possible |
| Whether pre-Booker bottom-of-range exception still applies post-Booker | Doyle: Booker made guidelines advisory, so bottom-of-range exception should end | Gov: pre-Booker precedent (no prejudice at bottom) remains binding | Court: bottom-of-range exception no longer generally applies post-Booker; presumption of prejudice applies except narrow categories (e.g., statutory mandatory minimum) |
| Appropriate remedy after finding allocution prejudice | Doyle: entitled to allocution and reconsideration | Gov: remedy limited by Phillips; cannot relitigate PSR objections | Court: vacate and remand for limited resentencing to permit allocution; no new PSR objections; district court may consider post-sentencing rehabilitation under Pepper |
| Burden of proof for prejudice in plain-error allocution cases | Doyle: presumption of prejudice should shift burden | Gov: appellant must show prejudice absent presumption | Court: presumption applies in most post-Booker cases where a lower sentence was possible; burden remains generally on appellant but exception narrow |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Quintana, 300 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2002) (pre-Booker rule: no presumed prejudice where defendant received bottom-of-range sentence)
- United States v. Prouty, 303 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2002) (articulated presumption of prejudice when allocution denied and lower sentence was possible)
- United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 568 (11th Cir. 2011) (post-Booker, reaffirmed presumption when defendant not sentenced at bottom of range)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (discusses Booker’s holding that guidelines are advisory)
- United States v. Phillips, 225 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2000) (remedy for counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal: vacate and re-impose sentence to permit direct appeal)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (district court may consider post-sentencing rehabilitation at resentencing)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (plain error standard and burden to show prejudice)