United States v. Gonzalez
682 F.3d 201
2d Cir.2012Background
- Deida convicted at trial of two counts of bank robbery in Connecticut in 2009 with Gonzalez and Crespo as accomplices.
- Robberies: Milford Webster Bank (Jan 28, 2009) and Woodbridge TD Bank (Apr 6, 2009); approx. $84,000 and $23,000 taken respectively.
- Evidence linked defendants to robberies, including Gonzalez's cell phone and a number matching Deida's contact in a job application found with Deida.
- Prior to trial, government filed information under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) and 21 U.S.C. § 851 asserting three Connecticut felonies as predicates for life sentence.
- At sentencing, district court found the three convictions were serious violent felonies under § 3559(c) and sentenced Deida to life imprisonment on both counts.
- Deida appeals challenging the constitutionality of § 3559(c) and the requirement that predicate convictions be found by a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Separation of powers conformance | Deida argues § 3559(c) violates separation of powers by delegating sentencing to the executive. | Deida asserts executive influence over judiciary in sentencing is constitutionally problematic. | § 3559(c) constitutional; no coercive or encroaching executive control over sentencing. |
| Jury requirement for predicate convictions | Almendarez-Torres requires prior convictions for recidivism enhancements to be found by a jury. | Prior convictions used for recidivism enhancements may be found by a judge. | Almendarez-Torres exception remains; no requirement for jury finding of predicate convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (Supreme Court 1989) (upholds congressional sentencing structure and coordination among branches)
- Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (Supreme Court 1991) (Congress can define punishments without courts having exclusive sentencing discretion)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (Supreme Court 1998) (prior convictions for recidivism enhancements need not be elements proved to jury)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court 2000) (preserves Almendarez-Torres exception for non-elements; not overruled)
- United States v. Jennings, 652 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2011) (acknowledges prosecutorial discretion does not violate separation of powers)