United States v. Hunt
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18216
9th Cir.2011Background
- Hunt pleaded guilty to attempted possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance; district court later sentenced him under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) for an unspecified amount of cocaine.
- A Federal Express package arriving in Anchorage contained about 1 kilogram of cocaine; Hunt admitted to ordering drugs and to a statement describing the package and intended disposition.
- During plea colloquy, Hunt admitted intent to possess and to distribute the substance but did not clearly admit the specific drug type or amount beyond a generic controlled substance.
- The government and court incorrectly framed the elements for the offense as including possession of cocaine or another drug, leading to a potential Apprendi error in sentencing.
- At sentencing, the court relied on evidence (including a post-arrest statement and detective testimony) to calculate an offense level and apply a sentencing range under § 2D1.1, and then upwardly departed based on Hunt’s criminal history to reach 180 months.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding that the Apprendi error was not harmless because Hunt contested the omitted element and the record did not contain overwhelming, uncontroverted evidence of his intent to possess cocaine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Apprendi error occurred by sentencing on an unspecified drug type/amount | Hunt did not admit cocaine specifics; government failed to prove the omitted element beyond a reasonable doubt. | Apprendi requires jury finding or defendant admission for drug type/amount affecting maximum penalty. | Yes; Apprendi error occurred and was not harmless. |
| Whether the Apprendi error was harmless under Neder/Zepeda-Martinez | Record contained overwhelming evidence of cocaine possession. | Record did not establish overwhelming, uncontroverted proof of Hunt’s intent to possess cocaine. | Not harmless; a jury could have found contrary on the omitted element. |
| Scope of harmless-error review when the omitted element is contested | Neder framework requires consideration of evidence that would have been presented at trial. | Record is insufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the error didn’t affect the outcome. | Harmless error review applies; cannot affirm on speculative record. |
| Remedy for Apprendi error in plea-based sentencing | Sentence must be vacated and remanded for resentencing within the proper range. | Remand is appropriate to adjust sentence to reflect admitted facts. | Vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with admitted facts. |
| Impact of record limitations on ability to litigate at trial versus sentencing | Record allowed evaluation of intent beyond plea record; no need for new trial. | Record at sentencing is insufficient to sustain a higher sentence without the omitted element. | Remand necessary; cannot sustain enhanced sentence based on nonlitigated element. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2002) (drug quantity/type must be charged, proven beyond reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Thomas, 355 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2004) (drug type/quantity are material facts but not elements charged in § 841; plea can admit generic elements)
- United States v. Zepeda-Martinez, 470 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2006) (Apprendi error harmless where overwhelming evidence supports the omitted element)
- United States v. Jordan, 291 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002) (absence of indictment/charging the quantity defeats harmless error analysis)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (S. Ct. 1999) (harmful error analysis applies even when record bears overwhelming guilt evidence)
- Carella v. California, 491 U.S. 263 (S. Ct. 1989) (harmless error doctrine applies to instructional errors affecting intent)
- Washington v. Recuenco, 548 U.S. 212 (S. Ct. 2006) (harmless-error review is applicable to constitutional errors)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (S. Ct. 2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)