621 F. App'x 61
2d Cir.2015Background
- Dwayne Stone, a former Brooklyn gang member, was convicted in 2008 of multiple offenses including murder in aid of racketeering and related racketeering and firearms counts.
- The District Court originally imposed a mandatory life sentence on count 12 (murder in aid of racketeering).
- After Miller v. Alabama (2012) held mandatory LWOP for offenders under 18 unconstitutional, Stone moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence.
- The District Court vacated the sentence and resentenced Stone on August 11, 2014, to an aggregate 480-month term (40 years), a sentence Stone requested in his sentencing submissions.
- On appeal Stone argued the 480-month term was the “functional equivalent” of life without parole and thus violated Miller; the government argued Stone would be eligible for release at a reasonable point in his life.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding Stone waived the claim because he had expressly requested and represented that the 480‑month sentence complied with Miller and would permit eventual release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 480‑month term‑of‑years sentence imposed after Miller violates the Eighth Amendment as the functional equivalent of LWOP | Stone: Miller’s reasoning applies to extreme term‑of‑years sentences; 40 years is effectively life and thus unconstitutional | Government: Stone will be eligible for release at a reasonably likely point in his life; sentence does not run afoul of Miller; alternatively, Stone waived the claim | Court: Waiver — Stone requested the 480‑month term and affirmatively told the court it complied with Miller; appeal is without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for offenders under 18 violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juvenile sentencing principles limit life without parole for nonhomicide offenses)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (definition and effect of waiver vs. forfeiture)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (true waiver precludes plain‑error review)
- United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2007) (finding of waiver appropriate where defendant actively solicited the outcome)
- United States v. Nieves, [citation="354 F. App'x 547"] (2d Cir. 2009) (prior appeal affirming Stone’s convictions)