United States v. Beckstrom
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15555
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Beckstrom was convicted of possession of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- He had two prior felony drug convictions: a state conviction for possession of dangerous drugs for sale and a federal continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) conviction.
- The district court denied Beckstrom’s proposed duress defense and the jury was instructed without a duress defense.
- The government sought a mandatory life sentence under § 841(b)(1)(A) based on the two prior felonies.
- Beckstrom was sentenced to life under § 841(b)(1)(A).
- Beckstrom appealed challenging the duress ruling, the–two-prior-episodes theory for the enhancement, and the constitutionality of a life sentence based on uncited, non-jury-found prior convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the duress defense should have been allowed. | Beckstrom; district court denied. | Beckstrom contends there was evidence of an immediate threat and lack of opportunity to escape. | Duress defense denied; evidence failed to show no reasonable escape opportunity. |
| Whether Beckstrom’s two prior felonies constitute separate criminal episodes for § 841(b)(1)(A). | Beckstrom’s CCE and state drug conviction support life sentence. | The two predicates arose from same criminal enterprise; not separate episodes. | Two prior convictions satisfied the three-part test for separate episodes; Beckstrom qualifies for life sentence. |
| Whether the life sentence under § 841(b)(1)(A) is unconstitutional because it rests on facts not found by a jury. | Almendarez-Torres permits prior convictions to be sentencing factors. | Post-Thomas views may require jury finding for any fact increasing max sentence. | Constitutional under Almendarez-Torres as sentencing factor; not required to be jury-found. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Scott, 901 F.2d 871 (10th Cir. 1990) (duress elements; opportunity to escape must be reasonable)
- United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (Supreme Court 1980) (police protection as a reasonable alternative to crime to sustain duress)
- United States v. Portillo-Vega, 478 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2007) (gatekeeping on defense instructions; burden on defendant)
- United States v. Pace, 981 F.2d 1123 (10th Cir. 1992) (three-part test for separate criminal episodes under § 841(b)(1)(A))
- Hughes v. United States, 924 F.2d 1354 (6th Cir. 1991) (distinct times and opportunity to discontinue drug activity)
- United States v. Garret, 471 U.S. 773 (1985) (three predicate offenses required for CCE)
- United States v. De Jesus Mateo, 373 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2004) (context on separate-episode analysis)