United States v. Dewayne Jernigan ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 00-4042
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Dewayne Alan Jernigan,                   *
    *    [TO BE PUBLISHED]
    Defendant - Appellant.             *
    ___________
    Submitted: June 13, 2001
    Filed: July 26, 2001
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, HALL,* and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Dewayne Alan Jernigan pleaded guilty to manufacturing and possessing with
    intent to distribute methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 262 months in prison and
    five years of supervised release based upon the district court’s finding that he is a
    “career offender” under § 4B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Jernigan appeals,
    arguing that the district court erred in sentencing him as a career offender because his
    *
    The HONORABLE CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, United States Circuit
    Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    1993 Arkansas conviction for negligent homicide was not a “crime of violence” for
    purposes of the career offender guideline. We affirm.
    Section 4B1.1 subjects a defendant who is a career offender to an increased
    offense level and criminal history category. An adult convicted of a controlled
    substance offense is a career offender if he “has at least two prior felony convictions
    of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.” It is undisputed that
    Jernigan has a prior controlled-substance felony conviction. Thus, his sentence as a
    career offender turns on whether his prior conviction for negligent homicide was a
    “crime of violence” for career offender sentencing purposes. A “crime of violence” is
    defined in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a):
    The term “crime of violence” means any offense under federal or state
    law, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, that --
    (1)    has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use
    of physical force against the person of another, or
    (2)    . . . otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious
    potential risk of physical injury to another.
    After listing specific offenses that are crimes of violence, including manslaughter and
    aggravated assault, Application Note 1 to § 4B1.2 provides that other offenses are
    included if “the conduct set forth (i.e., expressly charged) in the count of which the
    defendant was convicted . . . by its nature, presented a serious potential risk of physical
    injury to another.”
    The following conduct led to Jernigan’s negligent homicide conviction. Shortly
    after midnight on May 19, 1993, while he was attempting to pass another vehicle
    during a rainstorm, Jernigan’s truck collided with the rear of the other vehicle, forcing
    it off the road into a tree and killing the other driver. Blood-alcohol tests at the scene
    -2-
    indicated that Jernigan was driving under the influence of alcohol, as defined by
    Arkansas law. He was initially charged with manslaughter. He ultimately pleaded
    guilty to negligent homicide while operating a vehicle while intoxicated or under the
    influence, a felony violation of ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-10-105(a)(1).
    In United States v. Rutherford, 
    54 F.3d 370
     (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    516 U.S. 924
    (1995), the Seventh Circuit held that a felony assault conviction for causing serious
    bodily injury while driving under the influence of alcohol was a crime of violence for
    career offender purposes. The majority concluded that felony driving-while-intoxicated
    falls within the “otherwise” clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) because “[d]runk driving
    is a reckless act that often results in injury, and the risks of driving while intoxicated
    are well-known.” 
    54 F.3d at 376
    . Judge Easterbrook in a concurring opinion did not
    reach that issue, concluding that the assault conviction at issue was a crime of violence
    because “every conviction of first-degree assault in Alabama entails ‘serious bodily
    injury,’ and a category of acts 100% of which end in ‘serious bodily injury’ necessarily
    ‘presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.’” 
    Id. at 379
     (emphasis
    in original).
    In United States v. DeSantiago-Gonzalez, 
    207 F.3d 261
    , 264 (5th Cir. 2000), the
    Fifth Circuit followed the majority in Rutherford and held that driving while intoxicated
    is a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B), which incorporates
    by reference the definition in § 4B1.2(a), because “the very nature of the crime of DWI
    presents a ‘serious risk of physical injury’ to others, and makes DWI a crime of
    violence.”
    On appeal, Jernigan argues that manslaughter is specifically listed as a crime of
    violence in Application Note 1 to § 4B1.2(a), that negligent homicide requires proof
    of a less culpable mental state than manslaughter, and therefore that the Sentencing
    Commission’s failure to include negligent homicide in its list of specified offenses
    means that it is not a crime of violence for career offender purposes. Like the Seventh
    -3-
    Circuit and the Fifth Circuit, we disagree. Both the “otherwise” clause in § 4B1.2(a)(2)
    and the “other offenses” sentence in Application Note 1 make it clear that the crimes
    of violence listed in Note 1 are not intended to be all-inclusive. When considering a
    prior felony offense that is not specifically listed, the issue is whether the conduct
    underlying the offense “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”
    Driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol presents a well-known risk
    of an automobile accident. In this case, as in Rutherford, that risk-laden conduct in fact
    resulted in a felony conviction for seriously injuring or killing another person. We
    agree with Judge Easterbrook’s concurring opinion in Rutherford -- the conduct
    underlying that offense meets the criteria of a crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a). We
    leave for another day the issue presented in DeSantiago-Gonzalez -- whether a DWI
    offense that does not result in injury or death is a crime of violence.
    The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-4042

Filed Date: 7/26/2001

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015