United States v. Robert Presley
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9778
7th Cir.2015Background
- Robert Presley was convicted after an eight-day trial of heroin- and gun-related offenses, including being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(c)(1)(A)(i); 21 U.S.C. § 846).
- Presley’s conviction and co-defendants’ conduct are detailed in United States v. Cooper, 767 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2014), which the panel referenced for the underlying facts.
- Norman Breedlove, a codefendant who testified pursuant to a plea agreement, was later found by the district court to be mentally incompetent and committed for evaluation; a jail guard also swore Breedlove admitted he lied at trial.
- Presley moved for a new trial arguing Breedlove’s testimony was perjured or that Breedlove was incompetent to testify; the district court denied the motion as either unclear or harmless given overwhelming other evidence.
- For sentencing the district court attributed at least 1 kilogram per month of heroin to Presley (and for sentencing purposes used a conservative 1 kg figure) and imposed a 440-month (≈36.7-year) prison term plus 17 conditions of supervised release.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence but expressed concern about the lack of sentencing consideration given to the implications of extremely long terms that result in elderly imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Breedlove’s testimony required a new trial because it was perjured or he was incompetent | Breedlove admitted (to a guard) he lied; his later incompetency finding shows his testimony was unreliable | Any incompetency/perjury was unclear and, in any event, harmless given overwhelming independent evidence of guilt | Denied—district court’s rulings were sound; any error was harmless |
| Whether the drug-quantity attribution at sentencing was excessive | Presley contested the judge’s finding that the conspiracy (while he was a member) was responsible for at least 1 kg/month | Court adopted a conservative attribution—treating Presley as responsible for only 1 kg total for sentencing purposes | Affirmed—the 1 kg assumption was reasonable and supported by the record |
| Whether the 440-month sentence was unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | Presley argued the sentence was greater than necessary to achieve sentencing goals (perfunctory assertion) | Government relied on Presley’s extensive criminal history, career-offender status, violent record, and guidelines range | Affirmed the sentence as within guidelines and not sufficiently challenged, but the court urged consideration of elderly-prisoner issues on resentencing review |
| Whether sentencing court erred by failing to consider the costs and diminished marginal deterrent effect of very long sentences (elderly-prisoner problem) | Presley implied the sentence was excessive given § 3553(a) factors (limited briefing) | District court focused on incapacitation, career-offender status, and dangerousness into older age; did not explicitly consider aging-out, discounting, or costs of elderly incarceration | Court did not reverse but admonished that sentencing should account for aging-out, deterrence discounting, and costs; invited district court to consider resentencing in light of these concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cooper, 767 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2014) (prior opinion detailing defendants’ criminal conduct referenced for factual background)
- United States v. Johnson, 685 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2012) (opinion noting concerns about lengthy sentences for aging prisoners)
- United States v. Bullion, 466 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2006) (discussion of sentencing considerations for long terms)
- United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d 519 (4th Cir. 2014) (sentencing opinion addressing elderly-prisoner issues)
- United States v. Payton, 754 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2014) (opinion invoking concerns about long sentences and aging)
- United States v. Craig, 703 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2012) (concurring opinion calling attention to long-sentence consequences)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (recent decision limiting certain supervised-release conditions)