United States v. Josny Charlestain
662 F. App'x 691
11th Cir.2016Background
- Appellant Josny Charlestain pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm/ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and possessing a firearm while subject to a domestic-violence-related court order (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)).
- At sentencing the government introduced evidence alleging Charlestain’s involvement in a 2009 homicide; Charlestain contended this evidence was not part of the factual basis and moved to enforce the plea agreement.
- The plea agreement reserved the government’s right to inform the court and probation office of all facts pertinent to sentencing, including relevant conduct and background information.
- The district court denied Charlestain’s motion to enforce the plea agreement; Charlestain appealed pro se, arguing breach of the plea agreement by presenting the homicide evidence at sentencing.
- The panel applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, noting the same issue had been litigated in Charlestain’s direct appeal, where this Court held the government could present the homicide evidence as relevant to § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government breached the plea agreement by introducing evidence of alleged 2009 homicide at sentencing | Charlestain: the homicide evidence was not part of the factual basis and its use breached the plea agreement | Government: plea reserved its right to present all facts pertinent to sentencing, including relevant conduct and background | Court: No breach; law of the case bars relitigation and government could present the evidence as relevant to § 3553(a) factors |
| Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine permits relitigation of the issue | Charlestain: (implicit) issue should be reconsidered | Government/District Ct: prior appellate decision resolved the question, so it is binding | Court: Law of the case applies; prior appellate holding controls unless exception applies |
| Whether any exception to law-of-the-case applies (new evidence, controlling precedent, clear error/manifest injustice) | Charlestain: did not show new evidence, new controlling precedent, or clear error | Government: none of the exceptions apply; prior decision correct and not clearly erroneous | Court: No exception applies; prior holding stands |
| Whether sentencing courts may consider uncharged or acquitted conduct and hearsay at sentencing | Charlestain: (implicit challenge) such evidence inappropriate here | Government: courts may consider background, character, and conduct (including relevant hearsay/acquitted conduct) for sentencing | Court: Agrees government may present such information at sentencing; § 3661, Pepper, and Eleventh Circuit precedent permit consideration by preponderance of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jordan, 429 F.3d 1032 (11th Cir. 2005) (describes law-of-the-case doctrine and its limits)
- United States v. Stinson, 97 F.3d 466 (11th Cir. 1996) (sets exceptions to law-of-the-case doctrine)
- United States v. Bobo, 419 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for law-of-the-case application)
- United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005) (sentencing may consider hearsay and evidence not admissible at trial if reliable and defendant can rebut)
- United States v. Faust, 456 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (court may consider acquitted or uncharged conduct at sentencing if proven by preponderance)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (district courts have broad discretion to consider fullest information about defendant at sentencing)