Rodriguez v. United States... Who is an Armed Career Criminal?

This case, heard on the same day as the Begay case, also explores the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act, but focuses on the "serious drug offense" rather than the "violent felony" part of the law. This case will try to figure out what is meant by "serious drug offense." I will briefly summarize the relevant facts from this case, which comes from the State of Washingon, and then focus on the legal issues.

Brief Facts

Gino Rodriquez had several felony convictions in Washington State, including three convictions for delivery of a controlled substance. He served prison time, was placed in community supervision and ran away. Finally, in April 2003, officers found him outside an apartment in Spokane, WA, where he had been staying with one Tammi Putnam. In the apartment a gun was found. At trial, it came out that a local teenager, a friend of Tammi's son, had given the firearm to Rodriquez because Rodriguez said he knew how to "get rid of it." Rodriguez might have had this knowledge but, unfortunately for him, he never acted on it. So, Rodriguez was charged with being a felon in possesson of a firearm, which violates federal law (18 USC 922(g)).

So far, so bad. But then, as often happens in life, things got worse. The government argued at his trial that Rodriquez' three previous drug convictions made him a career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA") (18 USC 924(e)). As we saw in the Begay case, this would ratchet up his sentence to a minimum of 15 years (180 months). The judge declined to accept the government's argument, and Rodriguez ended up being sentenced to 92 months in prison (about 1/2 of what it would be under ACCA). Why did the court turn down the government's argument? Well, let's turn to the law.

Legal Issues

Under the ACCA, a person like Rodriquez (a felon in possession of a firearm) who has had three prior convictions for a "violent felony" or a "serious drug offense" is subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years (18 USC sec. 924(e)(1)). Here is the definition of "serious drug offense:

"an offense under State law, involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance..for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law...," 18 USC sec. 924(e)(2)(A)(ii).

Well, this ought to be easy, you think. Just check the maximum terms of imprisonment for Mr. Rodriquez' three prior drug offenses and you have it. Right? Wrong. Here are the facts of Rodriquez' prior crimes. He was previously convicted of three drug offenses in violation of WRC sec. 69.50.401, the maximum penalty for which is five years' imprisonment (WRC sec. 9A.20.021(1)(c)). However, if a person is convicted of a "second or subsequent offense," which he was, the maximum penalty goes up to ten years (WRC sec. 69.50.408(1)). As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals then observed:

"The question, then, is whether the district court should consider the maximum penalty as provided in the five-year statute of conviction (which would not trigger the ACCA enhancement), or consider the maximum ten-year penalty resulting from the recidivism statute provision (which would trigger the ACCA enhancement)," 464 F3d 1072, 1079 (2006).

The Decision Below

I don't even have to tell you who took which side in the argument. Of course the government argued that the recidivism statute controlled, which would trigger the ACCA, which would lock Mr. Rodriguez away for at least 15 years. Rodriquez's attorney argued the opposite. What did the Ninth Circuit do? Well, it, as well as the district court, looked to the Ninth Circuit's decision in Corona-Sanchez (291 F3d 1201 (Cal, 2002)) for guidance.

In that California case, the Ninth Circuit decided that for federal enhancement purposes, when considering the prison term imposed for a prior offense:

"we must consider the sentence available for the crime itself, without considering separate recidivist sentencing enhancements," Id. at 1209.

Bingo. This analysis then guided the Ninth Circuit panel in the Rodriguez case. Despite the fact that Rodriguez seems to be a pretty unattractive character, the court concluded that under law his prior offenses don't count for purposes of the enhancement in the Armed Career Criminal Act. Therefore, he would be sentenced according to the guidelines for "felon in possession" of a firearm alone.

Conclusion

The government didn't want to accept the conclusion of the Ninth Circuit. Thus, when it submitted its petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, it framed the question precisely as we have described it:

"Whether a state drug-trafficking offense, for which state law authorized a ten-year sentence because the defendant was a recidivist, qualifies as a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e) (2000 & Supp. IV 2004)."

The question is now squarely presented to the Court. The Supreme Court doesn't like to affirm the Ninth Circuit, but it probably will here, on a close vote.

3116