United States v. Daniel O. Lockett
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10317
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Daniel Lockett was arrested carrying a bag that contained individually wrapped packages of both heroin and cocaine.
- He pled guilty to two counts of possession with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1): one count for heroin and one for cocaine.
- Sentencing guidelines treated Lockett as a career offender based on prior felonies; the district court imposed 151 months’ imprisonment.
- Lockett later argued on appeal that simultaneous possession of two drugs is a single offense, so (a) his convictions punished the same offense twice in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause and (b) his guilty plea was not knowing because he was unaware of the multiplicity problem.
- He did not raise a pretrial multiplicity objection in district court; the government argued waiver based on that failure.
Issues
| Issue | Lockett's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether simultaneous possession of two controlled substances constitutes one or multiple offenses for Double Jeopardy purposes | Simultaneous possession of heroin and cocaine is one crime, so two convictions are multiplicitous | Separate counts for each drug are permissible; multiplicity objection was not timely below | Court affirmed that treating possession of each drug as a separate offense is not plain error and rejected Lockett’s challenge to the lawfulness of multiple convictions (merits not reached due to waiver) |
| Whether Lockett waived the multiplicity/double jeopardy challenge | Waiver by plea does not bar consideration when the record alone establishes the violation; plea was therefore not a bar | Lockett failed to bring a pretrial Rule 12(b)(3) motion and thus waived the multiplicity claim | Guilty plea did not automatically waive the claim, but failure to raise a pretrial motion under Rule 12(b)(3) forfeited the issue; appellate relief on sentence was not available for lack of timely objection and good cause |
| Whether Lockett’s guilty plea was unknowing because he was unaware the counts might be multiplicitous | Plea was not knowing/voluntary if he was misled into believing he had committed two crimes when he had committed only one | Precedent from multiple circuits supports treating each controlled substance as a separate offense; plea review limited to plain error | Plain-error review fails: it was not ‘‘clear or obvious’’ that simultaneous possession is a single crime given contrary circuit authority; plea stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (guilty plea generally waives non-jurisdictional defects but limited exceptions exist)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (defines plain-error standard: error must be clear or obvious)
- United States v. Griffin, 765 F.2d 677 (7th Cir. 1985) (multiplicity objections must generally be raised pretrial in this circuit)
- United States v. Vargas-Castillo, 329 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003) (simultaneous possession of different drugs supports separate charges)
- United States v. DeJesus, 806 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1986) (Congress intended cumulative penalties for possession of different scheduled substances)
- United States v. Davis, 656 F.2d 153 (5th Cir. 1981) (possession of each controlled substance may be punished separately)
- United States v. Powell, 894 F.2d 895 (7th Cir. 1990) (distinguishing multiplicity in conspiracy counts; not controlling for possession charges)