United States v. Stefanidakis
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9336
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Stefanidakis pled guilty to four counts of interstate transportation of child pornography and one count of possession; district court sentenced concurrent 84-month terms on all five counts.
- Indictment charged four transportation counts (Counts 1–4) and one possession count (Count 5); plea agreement included a waiver-of-appeal for sentences of 60 months or less.
- Change-of-plea colloquy admitted guilt to all five counts; appellant admitted to transmitting four identified files and possessing five other files.
- Undercover officer monitored an Internet chat, obtained access to files via GigaTribe, and FBI later found 112 GB of child-pornography material; a March 12, 2009 search retrieved the external hard drive.
- Appellant argued sentencing on both possession and transportation violated double jeopardy and that four transportation counts were multiplicious; he also argued the record failed to show separate transactions, but the court reviews for plain error and affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy from sentencing on both possession and transportation | Stef anidakis argues for a violation due to same facts | Stefanidakis argues the counts embody same conduct | No double jeopardy violation; record shows separate conduct for each count. |
| Multiplicity of transportation counts | Transportation counts are separate acts | Counts could be multiplicitous only if no separate acts proven | Counts premised on four separate files; not multiplicious; valid under record. |
| Whether record shows a rational basis for separate acts | Indictment identified four files for transportation | Record lacks file-sharing specifics | Record supplies factual basis for four separate transportation acts. |
| Plain-error review given plea and waiver | Claim not preserved below; should be reviewed for plain error | Waiver and guilty-plea limit arguments; plain error not shown | No plain-error to overturn sentence; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975) (double-jeopardy relief after guilty plea not absolute; precludes broad relitigation of issues)
- United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (guilty plea forecloses most double-jeopardy/vindication challenges; only power to convict if record shows no authority)
- United States v. Pollen, 978 F.2d 78 (3d Cir.1992) (gives framework for double-jeopardy review post-plea; separate acts basis)
- United States v. Pimentel, 539 F.3d 26 (1st Cir.2008) (indicates separate acts must be shown for multiple transportation counts)
- United States v. Matos-Quiñones, 456 F.3d 14 (1st Cir.2006) (supports evaluating unit of prosecution and separate acts)
- United States v. Grant, 114 F.3d 323 (1st Cir.1997) (protects four separate acts where record supports each)
- United States v. Makres, 937 F.2d 1282 (7th Cir.1991) (guilty plea limits multiplicity challenges)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review procedure in appellate courts)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (Double Jeopardy principle: each statute requires proof of different facts)