United States v. John Whitehurst
676 F. App'x 855
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant John Whitehurst appealed a 60-month sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release tied to a prior armed bank robbery conviction.
- At sentencing Whitehurst did not object to the district court’s finding that his conduct constituted a Grade A violation under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(1)(A)(i).
- The district court found Whitehurst committed conduct equivalent to Florida home-invasion robbery, which is punishable by up to life imprisonment if a deadly weapon was used.
- Under Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, the violation grade is based on the defendant’s actual conduct, not on formal criminal convictions.
- Whitehurst argued on appeal that the district court plainly erred by classifying home-invasion robbery as a “crime of violence” for purposes of a Grade A violation and contended he lacked notice if the court relied on the alternative § 7B1.1(a)(1)(B) ground.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not plainly err in finding a Grade A violation and rejecting the notice argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court plainly erred in finding home-invasion robbery is a "crime of violence" for Grade A violation | Whitehurst: court erred in classifying the conduct as a crime of violence | Government: Whitehurst’s undisputed conduct matched Florida home-invasion robbery, punishable by life | No plain error; Grade A finding affirmed |
| Whether the Grade depends on conviction or actual conduct | Whitehurst: (implied) grading should not exceed notice from convictions | Government: grading properly based on actual conduct per U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1 comment n.1 | Court held grade is based on actual conduct, not conviction |
| Whether alternative § 7B1.1(a)(1)(B) basis can support affirmance without prior notice | Whitehurst: lacked notice that court could rest on the alternative ground | Government: presence of § 7B1.1(a)(1)(B) in Guidelines provides notice; counsel’s oversight not dispositive | Court rejected notice objection and affirmed on any record-supported ground |
| Standard of review applicable to unobjected sentencing issue | Whitehurst: asserted plain error review applies | Government: plain error applies since no timely objection was raised | Court applied plain error standard and found no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mazarky, 499 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir.) (de novo review of legality of sentence on supervised-release revocation)
- United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir.) (plain-error review when defendant fails to object at sentencing)
- United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.) (elements required to establish plain error on appeal)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Sup. Ct.) (definition of plain error as clear or obvious under existing law)
- United States v. Chitwood, 676 F.3d 971 (11th Cir.) (appellate court may affirm for any reason supported by the record)
- United States v. Campbell, 473 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir.) (sentencing range on supervised-release revocation based on conduct classification and original criminal history)