United States v. Jamon Winfrey ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 21-1014
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Jamon Lonzel Winfrey, also known as Jamon Lonzell Winfrey
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
    ____________
    Submitted: December 13, 2021
    Filed: January 31, 2022
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    LOKEN, Circuit Judge.
    Jamon Winfrey pleaded guilty to a felon in possession of a firearm offense in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1) and 924(a)(2). He was sentenced under the
    Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) because his multiple prior felony convictions
    included three predicate serious drug offenses. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (e)(1). One of
    the ACCA predicates was a 1990 state court felony conviction when Winfrey was
    fifteen years old. At sentencing, Winfrey objected that an ACCA enhancement based
    on this juvenile offense would violate the Eighth Amendment as construed in Miller
    v. Alabama, 
    567 U.S. 460
     (2012). The district court1 overruled the objection,
    concluding it was foreclosed by Eighth Circuit precedent. Varying downward, the
    court sentenced Winfrey to 135 months’ imprisonment followed by a 21-month
    consecutive sentence for committing this offense while on supervised release for a
    prior offense. Winfrey appeals the sentence, arguing the district court erred in
    rejecting his Eighth Amendment contention. We review this claim of constitutional
    sentencing error de novo. See United States v. Emmert, 
    825 F.3d 906
    , 910 (8th Cir.
    2016), cert. denied, 
    137 S. Ct. 1349
     (2017). Agreeing Winfrey’s contention is
    foreclosed by controlling Eighth Circuit precedents, we affirm.
    In a series of cases governing juvenile criminal sentencing, the Supreme Court
    established that the concept of proportionality central to the Eighth Amendment
    requires recognition that “because juveniles have lessened culpability they are less
    deserving of the most severe punishments.” Graham v. Florida, 
    560 U.S. 48
    , 68
    (2010). In Roper v. Simmons, 
    543 U.S. 551
    , 578 (2005), the Court held that the
    Eighth Amendment “forbid[s] imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were
    under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed.” In Graham, 560 U.S. at 82,
    the Court held that “[t]he Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole
    sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide.” In Miller, the Court
    held “that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of
    their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual
    punishments.’” 
    567 U.S. at 465
    .
    Roper, Graham, and Miller reviewed sentences initially imposed on juvenile
    offenders. Winfrey argues that using his juvenile offense to apply an ACCA
    enhancement to the sentence imposed for his adult felon-in-possession offense is “the
    1
    The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the
    Southern District of Iowa.
    -2-
    functional equivalent of a mandatory no parole sentence” and therefore is
    unconstitutional under Miller. In United States v. Jones, 
    574 F.3d 546
    , 553 (8th Cir.
    2009), we rejected the contention that an ACCA enhancement based on crimes
    committed as a juvenile was unconstitutional under Roper, concluding that “Roper
    does not deal specifically -- or even tangentially -- with sentence enhancement.” In
    United States v. Sykes, we reaffirmed our decision in Jones and held that “[n]either
    Roper nor Graham prohibit sentence enhancement based on convictions incurred as
    a juvenile.” 
    809 F.3d 435
    , 440 (8th Cir.), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other
    grounds, 
    137 S. Ct. 124
     (2016).2
    Acknowledging these adverse precedents, Winfrey argues that we should not
    view Jones as binding on our panel because it was decided prior to Miller. True
    enough, but Miller simply applied the reasoning of Roper and Graham to an
    additional type of juvenile sentence -- mandatory life without parole. Miller did
    nothing to cast in doubt our prior determination that cases imposing Eighth
    Amendment limitations on initial juvenile sentences do not control recidivist
    sentencing enhancements for adult offenders. When a recidivist enhancement such
    as the ACCA is applied in sentencing an adult offender like Winfrey, “100% of the
    punishment is for the offense of conviction,” with the enhancement serving as a
    “stiffened penalty for the latest crime, which is considered to be an aggravated
    offense because it is a repetitive one.” United States v. Rodriquez, 
    553 U.S. 377
    , 386
    (2008) (cleaned up). Therefore, not surprisingly, we have upheld the use of juvenile
    offenses in imposing recidivist sentencing enhancements since the Supreme Court
    decided Miller, both in Sykes, 809 F.3d at 439-40, and in Emmert, 825 F.3d at 910
    (
    18 U.S.C. § 2252
    (b)(2) enhancement). See also Wright v. United States, 
    902 F.3d 868
    , 872 n.5 (8th Cir. 2018).
    2
    On remand, we vacated our prior decision because the state law burglary
    convictions at issue were no longer ACCA predicates, but we did not reconsider our
    interpretation of Roper and Graham. See United States v. Sykes, 727 F. App’x 908,
    909 (8th Cir. 2018).
    -3-
    Here, Winfrey’s ACCA-enhanced sentence punishes him for a crime he
    committed when he was 45 years old. The reasoning underlying Roper, Graham, and
    Miller -- that juveniles offenders have reduced culpability and greater capacity for
    rehabilitation -- cannot excuse Winfrey’s actions. “Unlike defendants who receive
    severe penalties for juvenile offenses and are thus denied a chance to demonstrate
    growth and maturity, ACCA recidivists have been given an opportunity to
    demonstrate rehabilitation, but have elected to continue a course of illegal conduct.”
    United States v. Orona, 
    724 F.3d 1297
    , 1308 (10th Cir.) (cleaned up), cert. denied
    
    571 U.S. 1034
     (2013); accord United States v. Hunter, 
    735 F.3d 172
    , 176 (4th Cir.
    2013), cert. denied 
    572 U.S. 1074
     (2014).
    The judgment of the district court is affirmed. We deny Winfrey’s pro se
    motion and renewed motion for appointment of new appellate counsel.
    ______________________________
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-1014

Filed Date: 1/31/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/31/2022