UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Guadalupe I. MEJIA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-3649
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Decided June 13, 2017
859 F.3d 475
Argued March 1, 2017
If written statements can introduce entirely new lines of reasoning in support of the sentence, we might as well not have the oral proceeding at all. Yet it is well established that “[a] sentence pronounced in a defendant‘s presence prevails over a written sentence when the two conflict.” United States v. McHugh, 528 F.3d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Makres, 851 F.2d 1016 (7th Cir. 1988)). That rule tells us that the in-court sentencing hearing is the main event, and it cannot be “patched up” later with (as far as this record reveals) a post hoc justification for the court‘s ultimate choice of a sentence. Even if the written reasons seem reasonable, as they do here, when they are not provided before the decision is made we cannot say with confidence whether the judge thought of them prior to or following his sentencing decision. Nor do we know whether additional evidence or argument on the defendant‘s part might have influenced the judge‘s weighing of the mitigating and aggravating factors.
Regrettably, nothing that the district court said during the sentencing hearing reveals any consideration of the hardships to Reed‘s family—hardships that Reed was trying to call to the court‘s attention. The only thing the court said about his family was that he had been a “wonderful” father, husband, and brother. That alone, however, was weak evidence to balance against the fraud Reed had committed, and it had nothing to do with Reed‘s actual argument in mitigation. My colleagues “see no value in remanding for an oral repetition of what was said in writing.” Ante at 474. I do not agree with them. We have held that a judge must consider a defendant‘s principal mitigating arguments and have reversed when the judge does not do so. See United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2005). Our decision in United States v. Garcia-Segura, 717 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2013), offers a procedure designed to ensure that the defendant‘s principal arguments in mitigation have been addressed before the court imposes its sentence. Neither that procedure nor any adequate substitute took place in this case. I would remand for resentencing, and I therefore respectfully DISSENT from Part II.B. of the opinion.
Thomas W. Patton, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.
The issue in this appeal is whether the district court had a sufficient basis for imposing an above-guideline sentence on appellant Guadalupe Mejia, Jr., who pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of
The conflicting factual accounts of the bar fight convinced the district judge to reject the probation officer‘s recommendation to increase Mejia‘s guideline offense level by four levels on the theory that he had “used or possessed” a gun “in connection with another felony offense” or else had “possessed or transferred” the weapon with “knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or possessed in connection with another felony offense.” See
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Mejia pled guilty without a plea agreement. During the plea colloquy he did not admit any factual allegations beyond the essential elements of the
At the center of the fight was a confrontation between Mejia and a man named Winters, apparently over a woman whom Winters viewed as his girlfriend. It is not clear who threw the first punch, but Winters and Mejia started fighting. Mejia pulled a switchblade knife. Then two other men entered the fray, one on each side. Winters got help from a man named Tarkington, and Mejia called for help from fellow gang member McClain. After McClain arrived, several gunshots were fired. Some struck Tarkington‘s truck and the building where the bar was located.
The combatants separated. Mejia took the gun and hid it. When police questioned him the next day, he led them to the gun. Mejia told the police that he was not the shooter. He has maintained that position throughout this federal prosecution for being a felon in possession of the firearm.
At sentencing, the principal factual dispute was whether Mejia had fired the shots and thus whether his offense level should have been raised by four levels under
We need not recount all the details of the conflicting accounts of the bar fight from Winters, Tarkington, police officers, and Mejia‘s post-arrest statement. Suffice it to say the conflicts among those accounts made it impossible for the court to determine who fired the shots and thus whether Mejia handled the gun “in connection with another felony offense,” as
The judge stressed that no matter who started their fight, “the initial contact between the defendant and Mr. Winters was forceful.” And though the judge said she did not “really know what happened,” she continued that it was clear “there was a fight and there was a knife involved, a knife possessed by the defendant.” Still, the judge added, the aftermath “gets a little foggy.” The evidence did prove, the judge said, that Mejia had been “in the thick of it” and summoned McClain to the bar.
The judge explained that the guideline range is just one of the factors in
Mejia‘s behavior, the judge continued, demonstrated that his “only intention was to cause harm.” Whether or not Winters provoked him, the judge told Mejia, using a knife and “calling in reinforcements who bring a gun” was inexcusable. The judge emphasized that the “gun was used on that date to shoot at two individuals.” The evidence was inconclusive that Mejia fired the shots, the judge said, but it was enough to find that he committed an aggravated assault with the knife. Moreover, the judge added, it was worrisome that Mejia had invoked his gang because, “when groups are involved in violent activity, the harm is usually greater.”
The court went on to discuss Mejia‘s inability to control his impulsivity and anger, as shown by a “basically unbreakable trend” of crimes from age twelve through this incident, when Mejia was twenty-six. Mejia‘s criminal history category was VI, the highest of the guideline categories, and the court concluded that Category VI understated the likelihood of recidivism.
II. Analysis
On appeal Mejia argues that the district court violated his right to due process by relying on “speculation and unfounded allegations” in imposing sentence, emphasizing the judge‘s comment that she did not “really know what happened.” A convicted defendant has a due process right to be sentenced on the basis of accurate information. United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447 (1972); Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 741 (1948); United States v. Tankson, 836 F.3d 873, 881 (7th Cir. 2016); United States v. Guajardo-Martinez, 635 F.3d 1056, 1059 (7th Cir. 2011); U.S. ex rel. Welch v. Lane, 738 F.2d 863, 864 (7th Cir. 1984).
We find no due process violation here. Mejia reads too much into the district judge‘s comment that she did not “really know what happened.” In context, she was saying that the available evidence simply did not provide a reliable basis for a judicial finding of fact that Mejia had started the fight with Winters or had fired the shots. We do not disagree.
The judge also made clear, however, that other factual points were established and that they aggravated the seriousness of Mejia‘s actions. Regardless of how the fight started between Mejia and Winters, the judge found that Mejia was the one
The district court found that Mejia had committed aggravated assault. In this court Mejia‘s lawyer suggests that he pulled his knife in self-defense, particularly since Winters was much bigger than he was. But at sentencing Mejia never suggested that affirmative defense, much less supported it with evidence. On this record there is no support for a claim of self-defense. We assume for purposes of argument that if Winters had kept punching Mejia, then maybe—unlikely, but maybe—Mejia might have been in such danger that he would have been justified in going for his knife. But before he pulled that knife, he and Winters had separated. Mejia had gone back inside the bar to call McClain. He could have called the police, or waited until Winters had gone, or even escaped through the front door to avoid Winters. Instead, he left the relative safety of the bar and went back outside to confront Winters, thus escalating the situation further. See United States v. Rice, 673 F.3d 537, 541 (7th Cir. 2012) (explaining that valid claim of self-defense under Illinois law requires defendant to establish that use of force was necessary to avert great bodily harm). The district court did not err in finding that Mejia committed an aggravated assault against Winters.
That assault was also just one part of the court‘s explanation for the above-guideline sentence. We will uphold an above-guideline sentence as long as the district court adequately explained the chosen sentence consistently with the factors in
Here, the district court concluded that the Guidelines did not adequately address Mejia‘s “incredibly troubling” conduct. That conclusion is fully justified on this record. As the judge explained, Mejia did not simply possess a gun, which is all that his conviction under
In the end the district court concluded that past sentences had not deterred Mejia and that he would not be deterred by a sentence within the guideline range. The court recognized the need for a sentence “sufficient but not greater than necessary” to persuade Mejia not to commit future crimes. The court‘s thorough explanation justified the above-guideline sentence. The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.