United States v. Kenneth L. Harris
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1682
11th Cir.2014Background
- Kenneth Harris robbed a video game store multiple times in 2009, used a gun in each robbery, and shot employees on two occasions; he was charged with Hobbs Act robberies, § 924(c) firearm counts, and possession of ammunition as a felon.
- Jury convicted Harris of seven counts (three Hobbs Act robberies, three § 924(c) counts, one ammunition possession); three other counts were dismissed later.
- Government filed a § 851 information alleging multiple prior qualifying convictions; under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) this triggered a mandatory life sentence for Harris as a recidivist.
- District court imposed the mandatory life sentence under § 3559(c) plus consecutive terms totaling 57 years for other counts; Harris challenged the life sentence on appeal.
- On appeal Harris argued (1) Alleyne requires a jury finding of prior convictions before a mandatory enhancement and (2) § 3559(c) with § 851 unconstitutionally delegates sentencing power to the executive (separation of powers).
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the Alleyne claim for plain error (raised first on appeal) and the separation-of-powers claim de novo (raised below).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alleyne requires a jury finding of prior convictions used to trigger a mandatory life sentence under § 3559(c) | Harris: Alleyne means any fact that increases penalty must be found by a jury, so prior convictions must be jury-found | Government: Alleyne did not overrule Almendarez-Torres, which excepts fact of prior conviction from jury requirement | Court: Alleyne did not eliminate Almendarez-Torres; district court did not plainly err in relying on § 851 filings to impose life under § 3559(c) |
| Whether § 3559(c) combined with § 851 violates separation of powers by delegating sentencing choice to prosecutors | Harris: Prosecutor’s choice to file § 851 information improperly decides whether mandatory life applies, usurping judicial/legislative role | Government: Prosecutor’s charging discretion is classic executive function; Congress may set mandatory penalties and allow prosecutorial election | Court: Rejected Harris; controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent (Cespedes) and other circuits uphold constitutionality |
Key Cases Cited
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (prior conviction is an exception to Apprendi jury-finding rule)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury, except prior convictions)
- United States v. Cespedes, 151 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 1998) (upholding § 851 procedure; prosecutorial choice among charges with different penalties is classic executive power)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (judicial factfinding that does more than identify a prior conviction raises Sixth Amendment concerns)