Appellant Raymond Anthony Napolitan challenged his federal
sentence arguing that it was unreasonable to run the federal sentence consecutive
to an invalid state sentence. Napolitan
was sentenced under a Pennsylvania state law that increased the mandatory
minimum for sexual and simple assault, if committed with a firearm. Under state sentencing procedure, the judge
had to determine by a preponderance of the evidence if the defendant possessed
a firearm and used it to frighten the victim.
That sentencing procedure was
later determined to be unconstitutional following the Supreme Court decision in
Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct.
2151 (2013), which requires that a fact that may increase a statutory minimum
sentence be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In United States v.
Napolitan, the Third Circuit held that an defendant cannot collaterally
challenge a state court sentence as part of a federal sentencing challenge unless
(1) he is raising a Gideon violation
or (2) the applicable federal statute or sentencing guideline directly permits
the collateral attack. In reaching this
decision the appellate court looked at the precedent established in Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485
(1994), where the Supreme Court held that a defendant cannot collaterally
attack a state conviction through an appeal of a federal sentence. The circuit court explained that it was
illogical to allow a collateral attack on a state sentence via an appeal of a
federal sentence, when similar collateral attacks on state convictions are
prohibited. Additionally, the Third Circuit
noted that all other circuit courts to address this issue have reached the same
conclusion, barring collateral attacks of a prior state sentence in a federal
sentencing appeal, including the Second, Sixth and Ninth Circuits. Finally, the appellate court reasoned that
there were other ways for the appellant to challenge the state sentence including
filing a habeas petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.