Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 91 views

    United States v. Damien Stevenson, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving defendant Damien Stevenson appealing his career offender designation at sentencing. The district court found Stevenson had counsel for a prior Maryland drug conviction and counted it as a predicate offense. On appeal, Stevenson argued the prior conviction was invalid because it was obtained without counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Stevenson did not meet his burden to prove the prior conviction was invalid based on his self-serving testimony, and that the district court properly relied on state court records showing Stevenson had counsel for the prior conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Damien Stevenson, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    91 views4 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving defendant Damien Stevenson appealing his career offender designation at sentencing. The district court found Stevenson had counsel for a prior Maryland drug conviction and counted it as a predicate offense. On appeal, Stevenson argued the prior conviction was invalid because it was obtained without counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Stevenson did not meet his burden to prove the prior conviction was invalid based on his self-serving testimony, and that the district court properly relied on state court records showing Stevenson had counsel for the prior conviction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-04-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-4553

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving defendant Damien Stevenson appealing his career offender designation at sentencing. The district court found Stevenson had counsel for a prior Maryland drug conviction and counted it as a predicate offense. On appeal, Stevenson argued the prior conviction was invalid because it was obtained without counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Stevenson did not meet his burden to prove the prior conviction was invalid based on his self-serving testimony, and that the district court properly relied on state court records showing Stevenson had counsel for the prior conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    91 views4 pages

    United States v. Damien Stevenson, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case involving defendant Damien Stevenson appealing his career offender designation at sentencing. The district court found Stevenson had counsel for a prior Maryland drug conviction and counted it as a predicate offense. On appeal, Stevenson argued the prior conviction was invalid because it was obtained without counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Stevenson did not meet his burden to prove the prior conviction was invalid based on his self-serving testimony, and that the district court properly relied on state court records showing Stevenson had counsel for the prior conviction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-4553

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DAMIEN STEVENSON,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
    (1:12-cr-00549-CCB-1)

    Submitted:

    February 27, 2014

    Decided:

    April 16, 2014

    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton,


    Appellate Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.
    Rod J.
    Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael C. Hanlon, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Damien Stevenson pled guilty to possession with intent
    to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced to 120 months of
    imprisonment.

    At

    sentencing,

    Stevenson

    objected

    to

    the

    inclusion in his presentence report (PSR) of a Maryland state


    court

    conviction

    for

    possession

    with

    intent

    to

    distribute

    (state conviction), which was determined to be a predicate


    offense for the purpose of designating him as a career offender
    under

    U.S.

    Sentencing

    Guidelines

    (USSG)

    Stevenson raises this issue again on appeal.

    4B1.1

    (2012).

    For the reasons

    that follow, we affirm.


    Stevenson

    argues

    that

    his

    state

    conviction

    was

    obtained without the assistance of counsel in violation of the


    Sixth Amendment.

    To be classified as a career offender under

    USSG 4B1.1, a defendant must have been at least eighteen years


    old at the time he committed the offense of conviction, the
    offense

    of

    conviction

    must

    be

    crime

    of

    violence

    or

    controlled substance offense, and the defendant must have two


    prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a
    controlled
    court

    substance

    found

    that

    offense.
    the

    USSG

    record

    4B1.1(a).

    revealed

    The

    Stevenson

    district
    had

    the

    assistance of counsel for his state conviction.


    Generally,

    unless

    prior

    conviction

    has

    been

    reversed, vacated, or invalidated in a prior case, the court


    2

    must count the conviction as a predicate conviction.


    States v. Bacon, 94 F.3d 158, 161 (4th Cir. 1996).

    United
    Moreover,

    defendants typically cannot collaterally challenge a predicate


    conviction during a sentencing proceeding.

    See id. at 163-64.

    The exception to this rule permits a defendant to challenge the


    convictions used to enhance his sentence when such convictions
    are obtained in the absence of counsel.

    Id. at 162 (citing

    Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994)).

    When a defendant

    challenges his conviction on this ground, the determination of


    whether the right to counsel has been waived is a question of
    law that we review de novo.
    363, 365 (4th Cir. 2004).
    challenge

    to

    prior

    United States v. Hondo, 366 F.3d

    When a defendant raises this type of

    conviction,

    he

    bears

    an

    especially

    difficult burden of proving that the conviction was invalid.


    Id. (citation omitted).
    The

    district

    court

    relied

    on

    state

    court

    records

    showing that Stevenson had counsel when he pled guilty to the


    state charge.

    Stevenson relies on his own affidavit as the

    basis for contending that he lacked any useful assistance of


    counsel

    when

    pleading

    guilty

    to

    the

    state

    charge.

    We

    have

    previously held, however, that the self-serving testimony of


    the defendant may not be enough to defeat the presumption of
    regularity that attaches to final judgments.
    Jones, 977 F.2d 105, 111 (4th Cir. 1997).
    3

    United States v.

    We conclude that Stevenson has failed to establish the


    demanding burden of showing that his conviction was invalid.
    Hondo, 366 F.3d at 365; Bacon, 94 F.3d at 162-63.
    we affirm.
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument as the facts and

    contentions
    this

    Accordingly,

    Court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    addressed

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like