United States v. Larry Maxey
699 F. App'x 435
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Larry Maxey pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced below the Guidelines.
- At sentencing the district court relied on factual findings in the Presentence Report (PSR) to determine the drug quantity attributed to Maxey.
- Maxey did not object to the PSR or to the drug-quantity findings at sentencing.
- On appeal Maxey claimed (1) procedural and substantive error in the court’s reliance on the PSR for drug quantity, (2) his plea was involuntary because he did not know the attributable drug quantity, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge evidence and the PSR.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed unpreserved claims for plain error and declined to review the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal because the record was undeveloped.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Maxey) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court procedurally erred by relying on PSR drug-quantity findings | Court relied on PSR without adequate inquiry; improper reliance on unchallenged facts | PSR facts were unobjected to; court may adopt them; review is plain error | No error; adoption of unchallenged PSR findings permissible; plain-error standard not met |
| Whether substantive reasonableness of sentence was improper | Sentence improperly weighted factors or failed to account for significant §3553(a) factors | Court balanced §3553(a) factors and sentence was below Guidelines; presumptively reasonable | No abuse of discretion; defendant failed to rebut presumption of reasonableness |
| Whether plea was involuntary because drug quantity was unknown | Plea not voluntary because Maxey did not know the drug quantity that would be attributed to him | Maxey was sworn and acknowledged understanding consequences, Guidelines, and court may rely on PSR facts | No plain error; sworn statements at rearraignment preclude involuntariness claim |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not challenging PSR/drug-quantity findings | Counsel failed to challenge government evidence, witnesses, and PSR on quantity | Effectiveness inquiry is fact-intensive and not appropriate on direct appeal from undeveloped record | Not addressed on direct appeal; decline to review (record insufficient) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for forfeited claims)
- United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47 (5th Cir. 1991) (questions of fact resolvable by district court on proper objection cannot be plain error)
- United States v. Cabrera, 288 F.3d 163 (5th Cir. 2002) (district court may adopt PSR facts absent objection)
- United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2009) (standards for substantive-reasonableness review under §3553(a))
- United States v. Simpson, 796 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2015) (presumption of reasonableness for below-Guidelines sentences)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) (sworn statements at plea colloquy carry strong presumption of truth)
- United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829 (5th Cir. 2014) (declining to resolve ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal when record is undeveloped)