United States v. Daniel Franco ( 1993 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion









    May 3, 1993
    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    ___________________


    No. 92-1614




    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

    Plaintiff, Appellee,

    v.

    DANIEL FRANCO,

    Defendant, Appellant.


    __________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND


    [Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]
    ___________________

    ___________________

    Before

    Breyer, Chief Judge,
    ___________
    Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
    ______________

    ___________________

    Scott A. Lutes, on brief for appellant.
    ______________
    Lincoln C. Almond, United States Attorney, and Stephanie S.
    _________________ ____________
    Browne, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
    ______



    __________________

    __________________

















    Per Curiam. Defendant, Daniel Franco, pleaded
    ___________

    guilty to a one count indictment charging him with unlawful

    possession of firearms after having been convicted of a

    felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). He appeals the

    court's finding that he was subject to sentence enhancement

    as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), the

    sentencing range calculation under 4B1.4 of the Sentencing

    Guidelines, and the imposition upon him of the costs of

    supervised release.

    The brief filed by defendant's attorney states that

    the first two grounds on appeal are raised in accordance with

    Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), thus indicating
    ______ __________

    the attorney's view that they are not meritorious. Defendant

    has been accorded an opportunity to file additional

    arguments, which he has not done.

    The brief shows that defendant's attorney has

    conducted the required detailed review and analysis of the

    case. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81 n.4 (1988). Counsel
    ______ ____

    has also actively pursued the one arguable point on appeal,

    and the prosecution has now conceded it. As we agree that

    the Anders-briefed issues are indeed frivolous, and we find
    ______

    no other arguable legal issues after reviewing the record,

    the case may be determined without further adversarial

    presentation. Penson, 488 U.S. at 82, 83-84.
    ______





    -2-















    Under 924(e) a person convicted of violating

    922(g) is subject to sentence enhancement if he has three

    previous convictions for a violent felony or a serious drug

    offense or both. Defendant concedes that two of his prior

    offenses were properly classified as "violent" felonies under

    18 U.S.C. 924(e).1 He takes issue, however, with the

    court's classification of three other prior felony

    convictions as "violent." Two of the three convictions at

    issue were entered on pleas of nolo contendere to charges of

    breaking and entering under R.I. Gen. Laws 11-8-3 (1969),

    R.I. Gen. Laws 11-8-3 (1981); the third was on a plea of

    guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon under R.I. Gen.

    Laws 11-5-2 (1969).

    As to the two breaking and entering convictions,

    defendant argues that these crimes do not qualify as

    predicate "violent" offenses because the state's statutory


    ____________________

    1. 924(e)(2)(B) defines "violent" felony as:
    ... any crime punishable by imprisonment
    for a term exceeding one year, or any act
    of juvenile delinquency involving the use
    or carrying of a firearm, knife, or
    destructive device that would be
    punishable by imprisonment for such term
    if committed by an adult, that --
    (i) has as an element the use,
    attempted use or threatened use of
    physical force against the person of
    another; or
    (ii) is burglary, arson, or
    extortion, involves the use of
    explosives, or otherwise involves conduct
    that presents a serious potential risk of
    physical injury to another ....

    -3-















    definition refers to several offenses, some of which fall

    outside the generic definition of "burglary." The state's

    definition also does not include a separately stated element

    of violence. The charging documents in these cases, however,

    clearly reveal that in each case defendant was convicted of a

    felony that fell squarely within the "generic" definition of

    burglary (unlawful entry of an apartment with the intent of

    committing larceny, and unlawful entry of a building with the

    intent of committing larceny). Taylor v. United States, 495
    ______ _____________

    U.S. 575, 598 (1990); see United States v. Paleo, 967 F.2d 7,
    ___ _____________ _____

    10 (1st Cir. 1992) (when statute includes both generic and

    non-generic burglaries, sentencing court may look to the

    charging documents). Despite the absence of a separately

    stated element of violence, Congress included these crimes

    among the predicate "violent" crimes under 924(e) because

    of their "inherent potential for harm to persons." Taylor,
    ______

    495 U.S. at 588; Paleo, 967 F.2d at 10.
    _____

    Defendant's conviction for assault with a dangerous

    weapon is also properly included as a predicate "violent"

    crime for sentence enhancement purposes under 924(e)(1).

    By definition, this crime "has as an element the use,

    attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against

    the person of another." 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(i); Taylor,
    ______

    495 U.S. at 600-601. Accordingly, we need not look beyond

    the fact of conviction to determine that the crime is an



    -4-















    appropriate predicate offense. United States v. Bregnard,
    ______________ ________

    951 F.2d 457, 459 (1st Cir. 1991) (Taylor's categorical
    ________

    approach extends to the entire enhancement statute), cert.
    _____

    denied, 112 S. Ct. 2939 (1992).2 Defendant's argument that
    ______

    924(e)(2)(B) defines assaults as violent predicate

    offenses only if they are accomplished with a "gun, knife or

    destructive device" misreads the federal statute. The quoted

    language qualifies only crimes of juvenile delinquency; it is

    irrelevant to crimes committed by adult offenders.

    We also find no error in the application of the

    sentencing guidelines. As defendant was subject to an

    enhanced sentence under 924(e), his offense level was

    properly determined under 4B1.4(a)(b)(3) to be 33. With a

    decrease of two points for acceptance of responsibility to

    31, and a criminal history level of VI, the court correctly

    found the guideline range to be 188-235 months. As an aside,



    ____________________

    2. Defendant seemingly argues that since he was charged
    with using an object that was not inherently dangerous, "to
    wit, a stick," the state statute necessarily includes
    potentially "unharmful" types of assault. This argument is
    belied by the statutory definition itself, which requires a
    "dangerous" weapon, and by the Rhode Island courts' reading
    of the statute as requiring "an unlawful offer to do corporal
    injury to another under such circumstances as may create a
    reasonable apprehension of immediate injury ... coupled with
    a present ability to carry the offer into effect." State v.
    _____
    Jeremiah, 546 A.2d 183, 186 (R.I. 1988). The object itself
    ________
    must be either an inherently dangerous object or used in such
    a way that serious bodily harm may have resulted. State v.
    _____
    Mercier, 415 A.2d 465, 467 (R.I. 1980). Compare with the
    _______ _______
    statute discussed in United States v. Harris, 964 F.2d 1234
    _____________ ______
    (1st Cir. 1992), and Bregnard, 951 F.2d at 459-60.
    ________

    -5-















    we note a typographical error on the sentencing report, page

    5, where, despite a correct computational result, the total

    offense level is reported as "23." The district court may

    correct this error at any time under Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

    Lastly, defendant argues, and the government now

    concedes, that in light of this court's decision in United
    ______

    States v. Corral, 964 F.2d 83, 84 (1st Cir. 1992), issued one
    ______ ______

    day after the sentence imposed here, the costs of supervised

    release should not have been imposed on the defendant, who

    was found indigent. We thus vacate that portion of the

    sentence. In accordance with Anders we have
    ______

    examined the entire record and find no other meritorious

    issues for appeal. Counsel's attention is directed to Loc.

    R. 45.6.

    Accordingly the judgment below is affirmed in part
    ________________

    and vacated and remanded in part for corrections in
    _________________________________

    accordance with this opinion.



















    -6-