Kiemle, Katherine

English

University of Baltimore School of Law

University of Baltimore Law ForumVolume 34Number 1 Summer/Fall 2003 Article 142003Recent Developments: United States v. Mason: TheFourth Circuit Clarified the Career CriminalClassification of the Federal Sentencing GuidelinesKatherine KiemleFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lfPart of the Law CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion inUniversity of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, pleasecontact snolan@ubalt.edu.Recommended CitationKiemle, Katherine (2003) "Recent Developments: United States v. Mason: The Fourth Circuit Clarified the Career CriminalClassification of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 34 : No. 1 , Article 14.Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol34/iss1/14Recent Developments United States v. Mason: The Fourth Circuit Clarified the Career Criminal Classification of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines I n United States v. Mason, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit clarified the career criminal classification of the federal sentencing guidelines. United States v. Mason, 284 F.3d 555 (4th Cir. 2002). The court held a prior state conviction for unarmed ro bbery committed when Mason was a juvenile cannot be counted as a predicate offense for purposes of career offender sentencing. Id. at 562. InApril 2000, JamesAnthony Mason ("Mason") pleaded guilty to illegal distribution of cocaine base. Mason's probation officer, on whom the court relied for a sentencing determination, assigned Mason a total offense level of twenty-nine, placing him in criminal history category VI. The probation officer's recommendation relied entirely on Section 4B 1.1 of the federal sentencing guidelines, which stipulates among other qualifications that a defendant have at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. In Mason's case, the probation officer's recommendation relied on a 1990 federal conviction for a controlled substance committed when Mason was twenty-six and a conviction for unarmed robbery By : Katherine Kiemle committed when Mason was a juvenile. Mason was sentenced to 151 months in federal prison and three years of supervised release as a result of his category IV criminal history. Pr;ior to sentencing, Mason objected to the court's reliance on the juvenile conviction in determining career criminal classification. The district court overruled Mason's objection. Mason appealed. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and vacated and remanded for new sentencing. In its evaluation, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dissected Sections 4BI.l and4BI.2 of the federal sentencing guidelines. Id. at 558. The court began with Section 4B 1, which sets forth requirements for the career criminal offender classification. The issue with regard to Mason lay with the third and final element of the classification, which states a "defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled sub-stance offense." Id. The court agreed with Mason that the first felony conviction relied upon by the court was questionable because, although convicted as an adult, he received a juvenile sentence. Id. at 559. The court, however, did not find the statute necessarily deter-minative.ld. For further analysis, the court reviewed commentary to Rule 4B 1.2, which defines prior felony conviction as a prior adult federal or state conviction. Id. at 559. As such, ajuvenile conviction cannot be counted in determining whether a defendant was a career offender. Id. The court acknowledged in its reading of Section 4 B 1.1 that the appropriate elements of criminal sentencing have typically been determined with reference to Section 4B 1.2. Id. at 559. How-ever, the court found Section 4A 1.2( d) provided potentially determinative information in this case. Id. Section 4A1.2(d) deals with whether offenses committed prior to age eighteen are included in the criminal history calculation. Id. The commentary clarifies that such offenses are counted only if the adult sentence exceeds one year and one month. Id. at 560. There-fore, the court reasoned if the commentary was followed, Ma-son'sjuvenile robbery conviction counted for purposes of career offender classification only ifhe was both convicted and sentenced as an adult.ld. at 560. The court examined whether 34.1 U. Bait. L.F. 43 Recent Developments the commentary was inconsistent with the guidelines and, by relying on the rule's plain language, determined it was not. Id. at 560. The Commission used the word "imprisonment" in Section 4AI.I (1), which refers to adult convictions and sentencing. Id. The Commis-sion then used the word "confine-ment" in Section 4Al.I (2), which covers both juvenile and adult dispositions. Id. The court rea-soned the Commission was delib-erate in its wording of the rule. Id. The Commission used the harsher term "imprisonment" to refer to adult adjudication. It used the less harsh term "confinement" to refer to juvenile adjudication. Id. These terms were, therefore, intentionally used to indicate different criminal dispositions. Id. For Mason's juv-enile conviction to count toward career offender purposes, he must have received an adult conviction and an adult sentence. Id. The court then analyzed whether Mason was both convicted and sentenced as an adult for his juvenile robbery offense. Id. at 560. . In making a determination, the court must, according to the rule, examine the sentencing and conviction guide-lines ofthe particular jurisdiction where the defendant was adjudi-cated. Id. Mason had been adjudi-cated in West Virginia. Id. The court assumed for pur-poses of its evaluation that Mason received an adult conviction. Id. A juvenile convicted under adult jurisdiction in West Virginia is not automatically sentenced as an adult. Id. at 561. Under West Virginia 34.1 U. Bait L.F. 44 code, a circuit court may remand a minor offender to juvenile juris-diction after adjudication as an adult by sentencing the offender as a juvenile. Id. Mason was sen-tenced as a juvenile under these guidelines since the judge sentenced him to placement in a rehabilitation center for youthful offenders. Id. Therefore, the court concluded Mason was sentenced as ajuvenile. Id. Mason's 1981 juvenile sen-tence meant, therefore, his convict-ion could not serve as a predicate felony under Section 4B 1.1. Id. at 562. As such, Mason did not qualify for career offender status under the federal sentencing guidelines. Id As a footnote to its holding, the Fourth Circuit recognized its decision was not necessarily consistent with decisions in other circuits. Id. at 562. The court's holding, in this case, may be read as a liberal interpretation of the federal sentencing guidelines. The court did permit a three-time felon to avoid the strict career offender classification based on, what some might read as, a technicality. However, the Fourth Circuit follow-ed the strictest reading ofthe rule. Federal sentencing guidelines do not permit courts to rely on juvenile felony offenses as predicate offenses for purposes of career offender sen-tencing. With its Mason decision, the Fourth Circuit made a bold statement. If the Legislature desires a different interpretation, it must change the rule accordingly. MAILING LIST INFORMATION UPDATE ATTENTION JUDICIARY AND LAW LIBRARIES If you wish to make changes to your mailing list information or need back issues of the Law Forum please contact: University of Baltimore Law Forum 1420 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 837-4493 e-mail: lawforum@ubaltedu www.ubalt.edullawforum A/y address is incorrect Please update your mailing list as follows: 

Recent Developments: United States v. Mason: The Fourth Circuit Clarified the Career Criminal Classification of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2110&context=lf

Recent Developments: United States v. Mason: The Fourth Circuit Clarified the Career Criminal Classification of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Baltimore School of Law