Williams, Milton Veran
WR-55,687-05
| Tex. App. | Mar 13, 2015Background
- Defendant Pablo Stallings was convicted in the D. Neb. of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack).
- The government filed a 21 U.S.C. § 851 information seeking sentence enhancement based on two prior felony convictions on July 13, 2001; trial began July 17, 2001.
- The two predicate convictions offered were a 1993 California conviction (nolo plea; probation granted and imposition of sentence suspended) and a 1987 Nevada conviction.
- Defense counsel objected at sentencing to the California conviction on identity, relevance, and foundation grounds and argued the California disposition did not amount to a final judgment for enhancement purposes.
- The jury convicted Stallings; the district court imposed an enhanced life sentence relying on both prior convictions. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction but held the California prior could not properly be used to enhance and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of §851 notice | Gov: filed §851 information before trial; notice was timely. | Stallings: notice filed only days before trial, prejudicing ability to prepare. | Held: Notice was timely (filed before jury selection) and satisfied §851(a)(1). |
| Validity of California prior for enhancement | Gov: California conviction is a valid predicate for §851 enhancement. | Stallings: California disposition (probation with suspended imposition) did not produce a final judgment, so it cannot be a predicate. | Held: California prior was not a properly entered final judgment and could not be used to enhance sentence; remand for resentencing. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of conspiracy | Gov: trial evidence (wiretaps, witnesses, physical evidence) supports conviction. | Stallings: witness motives and credibility undermine sufficiency. | Held: Evidence was sufficient; credibility issues are for the jury. |
| Disparity between crack and powder sentencing | Stallings: disparity violates due process. | Gov: established sentencing scheme distinguishes crack/powder. | Held: Argument rejected; circuit precedent forecloses relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Robinson, 110 F.3d 1320 (8th Cir. 1997) (timing of §851 notice must afford defendant reasonable opportunity to prepare)
- United States v. Johnston, 220 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2000) (de novo review of district court's use of prior convictions for enhancement)
- United States v. Qualls, 108 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 1997) (California suspended imposition/probation does not produce a final judgment for enhancement purposes)