United States v. Peter Thornton ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •              Case: 12-11267    Date Filed: 07/03/2013   Page: 1 of 10
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 12-11267
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 7:11-cr-00035-HL-TQL-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    PETER THORNTON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (July 3, 2013)
    Before HULL, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    After a guilty plea, Peter Thornton appeals his conviction and 188-month
    sentence for possessing with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base
    Case: 12-11267     Date Filed: 07/03/2013   Page: 2 of 10
    (“crack cocaine”), in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii). After
    review, we affirm.
    I.    BACKGROUND FACTS
    A.    Thornton’s Offense and Guilty Plea
    On January 1, 2007, law enforcement officers found a paper bag inside
    Thornton’s car containing 109 grams of crack cocaine, 75 grams of powder
    cocaine, and $1,450 in cash. Although Thornton was not present in the car at the
    time, the packaging materials inside the paper bag contained Thornton’s
    fingerprint. On several subsequent occasions, law enforcement agents used a
    confidential informant to purchase cocaine from Thornton and his associates.
    In 2011, Thornton was indicted for 1 count of possession with intent to
    distribute more than 28 grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii) (Count 1), and 5 counts of possession with intent to
    distribute cocaine, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 841
    (a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Counts 2
    through 6).
    In his plea agreement, Thornton agreed to plead guilty to Count 1 (the crack
    cocaine offense) and the government agreed, among other things, to accept the plea
    in full satisfaction of all possible criminal charges against Thornton.
    At a change of plea hearing in November 2011, Thornton indicated that he
    had met with his appointed defense attorney, Mickey Johnson, and had sufficient
    2
    Case: 12-11267     Date Filed: 07/03/2013   Page: 3 of 10
    time to talk with Johnson about the case. Thornton stated that he was satisfied
    with Johnson’s services, that they had discussed the facts of the case and the range
    of sentences, and that he (Thornton) wished to plead guilty.
    When the district court asked Thornton if he and Johnson had discussed the
    Sentencing Guidelines, however, Thornton indicated that they had not. Attorney
    Johnson similarly indicated that he was not sure to what extent they had discussed
    the Guidelines. The district court then continued the plea hearing until after
    Johnson had explained the Guidelines to Thornton.
    When the plea hearing resumed in December 2011, Thornton assured the
    district court that he had discussed the Sentencing Guidelines with attorney
    Johnson. Thornton affirmed that he understood what the Guidelines were, how
    they operated, and that the district court was not required to sentence him pursuant
    to the Guidelines, but could impose any sentence permitted by statute. Thornton
    indicated that he and Johnson had tried to estimate what the sentence would be, but
    that Thornton understood that he could not rely on that estimate.
    The district court accepted Thornton’s guilty plea, finding that there was a
    factual basis for the plea, that Thornton was guilty, and that he entered the plea
    freely and voluntarily.
    B.    Presentence Investigation Report
    3
    Case: 12-11267    Date Filed: 07/03/2013   Page: 4 of 10
    The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) initially assigned Thornton a
    base offense level of 28 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3) and (c)(6). The PSI then
    classified Thornton as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because he had (1)
    a 1990 conviction for a drug offense (selling cocaine) and (2) a 1991 conviction for
    a crime of violence (kidnapping).
    As to the 1990 conviction, Thornton was convicted in state court for selling
    cocaine on September 25, 1990, and was sentenced to four years of imprisonment
    and eight years of probation. On March 4, 1991, Thornton was released on parole.
    Less than a year later, on December 13, 1991, Thornton’s parole was
    revoked because he was convicted of several other crimes, including kidnapping.
    He was sentenced to 15 years for the kidnapping offense and remained
    incarcerated on both the drug and kidnapping convictions for nearly 7 years, until
    he was paroled again in September 1998. Thornton’s sentence for the drug offense
    expired in March 1999, and his sentence for the kidnapping offense expired in
    March 2002.
    Thornton’s career-offender classification resulted in a base offense level of
    34, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)(2), and automatically placed him into a
    criminal history category of VI. After a 3-level reduction for acceptance of
    responsibility, Thornton’s total offense level became 31, which, combined with his
    4
    Case: 12-11267    Date Filed: 07/03/2013   Page: 5 of 10
    criminal history category of VI, yielded an advisory guidelines range of 188 to 235
    months in prison.
    Thornton’s defense attorney, Johnson, did not file any objections to the PSI
    and did not submit a sentencing memorandum.
    Prior to sentencing, however, Thornton himself wrote a pro se letter to the
    district court, in which he asserted that Johnson was ineffective in advising him
    about the guidelines range. Thornton’s letter alleged, essentially, (1) that Johnson
    had advised Thornton that his guidelines range would be 63 to 78 months based on
    his criminal history; and (2) that Thornton was unaware that he would be classified
    as a career offender based on a 1990 drug conviction that occurred more than 15
    years before the present offense. Thornton’s letter asserted that Thornton would
    not have pled guilty “to being a career offender” and that Johnson’s incorrect
    guidelines estimate rushed him (Thornton) into pleading guilty.
    C.    Sentencing
    At the sentencing hearing, the district court inquired into Thornton’s
    allegations of ineffective assistance, but did not place either defendant Thornton or
    attorney Johnson under oath. Thornton told the district court that he was misled
    into pleading guilty because he thought his guidelines range was 63 to 78 months.
    Johnson responded that Thornton had not mentioned the kidnapping conviction in
    their earlier discussions, and that Johnson’s criminal record check did not reveal
    5
    Case: 12-11267     Date Filed: 07/03/2013   Page: 6 of 10
    that conviction. Thus, Johnson had “no way of advising [Thornton] that he might
    be a career offender” before the PSI was issued. Thornton then admitted that he
    had not told Johnson about his kidnapping conviction.
    The district court “rejected” Thornton’s complaint about Johnson,
    concluding that Johnson had represented him “properly and effectively.” The
    district court acknowledged that Johnson “made a mistake” by not informing
    Thornton of a possible career offender classification, but stated that “it was an
    honest mistake based on the fact that [Johnson] didn’t have all the information
    about [Thornton’s] case, information that [Thornton] possessed and didn’t give to
    [Johnson].” The district court then sentenced Thornton to 188 months in prison,
    the low end of the guidelines range, to be followed by 5 years of supervised
    release.
    Thornton filed a pro se notice of appeal, in which he alleged that his attorney
    Johnson had been ineffective. This time, Thornton asserted that Johnson knew
    about the kidnapping charge before the guilty plea, but advised Thornton that the
    charge did not show up in other documents related to his criminal history.
    Thornton also noted that his 1990 drug conviction was over 15 years old.
    This Court denied attorney Johnson’s motion to withdraw as counsel, and
    Johnson filed a brief for Thornton on appeal.
    6
    Case: 12-11267    Date Filed: 07/03/2013    Page: 7 of 10
    II. DISCUSSION
    A.    Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    In his counseled brief on appeal, Thornton argues that he received
    ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney, Johnson, failed to inform
    him that he might be classified as a career offender.
    We will not consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct
    appeal except “in the rare instance when the record is sufficiently developed.”
    United States v. Verbitskaya, 
    406 F.3d 1324
    , 1337 (11th Cir. 2005). Rather, the
    “preferred means for deciding a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is
    through a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion.” United States v. Patterson, 
    595 F.3d 1324
    ,
    1328 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Massaro v. United States, 
    538 U.S. 500
    , 504-05,
    
    123 S. Ct. 1690
    , 1694 (2003) (stating that “in most cases a motion brought under
    § 2255 is preferable to direct appeal for deciding claims of ineffective assistance”
    because the trial record on direct appeal is often “incomplete or inadequate” for the
    purpose of litigating such claims).
    In this case, the record is not sufficiently developed for us to review
    Thornton’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Although Thornton’s claim
    was briefly discussed at the sentencing hearing, neither Thornton nor Johnson was
    under oath at that time, and neither submitted a sworn statement either then or
    now. In this light, we decline to address Thornton’s ineffective assistance claim on
    7
    Case: 12-11267       Date Filed: 07/03/2013      Page: 8 of 10
    direct appeal, and we affirm his conviction. See Massaro, 
    538 U.S. at 504-05
    , 
    123 S. Ct. at 1694
    .
    B.     Career Offender Designation
    Thornton next argues that his classification as a career offender was
    erroneous because one of his predicate felony convictions, the 1990 drug offense,
    occurred more than 15 years before the present offense.
    A defendant qualifies as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines
    if, among other things, he “has at least two prior felony convictions of either a
    crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a)(3).1
    “Prior felony convictions under section 4B1.1 are counted using the definitions and
    instructions for computing criminal history in section 4A1.2.” United States v.
    Shannon, 
    449 F.3d 1146
    , 1148 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2,
    comment. (n.3).
    According to § 4A1.2, “[a] prior conviction is ‘any sentence previously
    imposed upon adjudication of guilt . . . for conduct not part of the instant offense.’”
    Shannon, 
    449 F.3d at 1148
     (quoting § 4A1.2(a)(1)). A prior sentence counts under
    § 4B1.1 if it resulted in “imprisonment exceeding one year and one month” and
    “was imposed within fifteen years of the defendant’s commencement of the instant
    offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(1). A sentence also counts if it was imposed more
    1
    “We review de novo a district court’s decision to classify a defendant as a ‘career
    offender’ under section 4B1.1” United States v. Whitson, 
    597 F.3d 1218
    , 1220 (11th Cir. 2010).
    8
    Case: 12-11267     Date Filed: 07/03/2013    Page: 9 of 10
    than 15 years before the current offense, but the incarceration extended into the
    applicable 15-year period. Id.; Shannon, 
    449 F.3d at 1148
    .
    The revocation of probation or parole can impact the time period in which
    sentences are counted under § 4A1.2(e)(1). Shannon, 
    449 F.3d at 1148
    . In the
    case of a prior revocation of probation or parole, the Guidelines direct the district
    court to “add the original term of imprisonment to any term of imprisonment
    imposed upon revocation.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(k)(1); Shannon, 
    449 F.3d at 1148
    .
    Thus, for career offender purposes, the district court “ordinarily should count a
    conviction that is imposed, and on which the defendant is paroled, outside the [15-
    year] window, when the defendant later—within the window—is incarcerated for
    breaching the conditions of his parole.” Shannon, 
    449 F.3d at 1148
     (internal
    quotation marks omitted).
    Thornton committed the present offense on January 1, 2007, and the 15-year
    window for counting his prior convictions opened in 1992. Thornton was
    sentenced for the prior drug offense in September 1990 and paroled in March
    1991—all outside the 15-year window. However, he was sent back to prison for a
    parole violation in December 1991 and remained incarcerated for nearly seven
    years, until September 1998. Thus, Thornton’s 1990 drug conviction resulted in
    incarceration after 1992, within the 15-year window, and the district court properly
    9
    Case: 12-11267    Date Filed: 07/03/2013   Page: 10 of 10
    counted that conviction as a predicate felony for career offender purposes. See
    U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(1); Shannon, 
    449 F.3d at 1148
    .
    In light of the foregoing, we affirm Thornton’s 188-month, within-guidelines
    sentence.
    AFFIRMED.
    10
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-11267

Judges: Hull, Wilson, Anderson

Filed Date: 7/3/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024