ROBERT BRUCE HAWLEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A defendant cannot compel the federal government to impose a sentence concurrent with a state sentence due to the dual sovereignty principle.
Appellant pleaded guilty to transporting stolen diamond rings and was sentenced to a consecutive federal term. He was already serving a state sentence…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Robert Bruce Hawley, was charged in December 1984 with three offenses involving a conspiracy to transport and actually transporting stolen diamond rings worth over $5,000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2314. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Hawley pled guilty to one count of transporting a stolen diamond ring. The district court sentenced Hawley to eight years, expressly providing that the sentence be served consecutively to a five year sentence Hawley was then serving pursuant to a conviction and sentence imposed by a Georgia court.
Hawley had previously been convicted and sentenced to a five year term by a Georgia court, which apparently intended that its sentence run concurrently with the sentence to be imposed for the instant federal offense.
Hawley argues on appeal that his consecutive federal sentence is unlawful because it denied the State of Georgia the right to impose a concurrent sentence.
We reject Hawley’s argument. Because of the division of powers between the federal government and the states under the dual sovereignty principle of our form of government, a defendant may not, by agreement with state authorities, compel the federal government to impose a sentence that is concurrent with an existing state sentence. United States v. Sackinger, 704 F. 2d 29, 32 (2d Cir.1983) (“under the dual sovereignty principle, Sackinger could not, by agreement with state authorities, compel the federal government to grant a concurrent sentence”).
See also United States v. Eastman, 758 F. 2d 1315 (9th Cir.1985) (federal court cannot, by attempting to impose a federal sentence to run consecutively to a state sentence which was yet to be imposed, preempt the right of a state court to apply its own sentencing laws).
Therefore, the district court was not bound by the state court’s intentions and was free to use its own discretion in applying federal law to determine the conditions of the appellant’s federal sentence.
Appellant’s other arguments on appeal are without merit and warrant no discussion. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meagher v. Clark, 943 F.2d 1277 (11th Cir. 1991)…, has precluded the bargained-for concurrency of sentences. We have recently affirmed the importance of these tenets of dual sovereignty and of. safeguarding the right of federal courts to impose concurrent punishments. In Hawley v. United States, 898 F. 2d 1513, 1514 (11th Cir.1990), this court cited and followed Sackinger (relied upon above), and held that absent federal involvement in the state plea bargain, federal courts are “not bound by the state court’s intentions and [are] free to use [their] own d…
-
United States v. Ballard, 6 F.3d 1502 (11th Cir. 1993)…reignty, we have determined that a defendant may be prosecuted and sentenced by both federal and state governments if his criminal conduct violates the laws of each sovereign. After Adair, another panel of this court decided Hawley v. United States, 898 F. 2d 1513 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam). In Hawley, the federal court gave the defendant an eight-year sentence to be served consecutively to a five-year state sentence that the defendant was then serving. Rather than reciting the state sentence definitively…
-
United States v. Clayton, 927 F.2d 491 (9th Cir. 1991)…its own laws on sentencing for violation of state criminal laws.” Id. at 1318. Such potential difficulties arising from dual sovereignty are best avoided if neither sovereign binds the sentencing discretion of the other. Cf. Hawley v. United States, 898 F. 2d 1513, 1514 (11th Cir.1990) (federal court not bound by state sentence directed to run concurrent with federal sentence not yet imposed); Pinaud v. James, 851 F. 2d 27, 30 (2nd Cir.1988) (same). In Eastman, we also emphasized that a federal sentence dire…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Eastman, 758 F.2d 1315 (9th Cir. 1984)
- United States v. Sackinger, 704 F.2d 29 (2d Cir. 1983)