U.S. v. Croom, 94-2887
| Citation | 50 F.3d 433 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2887,94-2887 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony L. CROOM, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
James M. Warden, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Indianapolis, IN, for plaintiff-appellee.
Jeffrey Baldwin (argued), Brown, Hastings, Baldwin & Clutter, Indianapolis, IN, for defendant-appellant.
Before CUMMINGS, EASTERBROOK, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Croom is a punk who grew up to be a thug. His first juvenile conviction was for battery. Next came a conviction for child molestation: when 13 years old, Croom had sexual intercourse with an 11 year old girl. Later Croom was convicted of burglary and other offenses. The burglary conviction disqualified Croom from possessing guns, but he thumbed his nose at the law. One day, while attired like a refugee from a gangster movie, with gloves and a hat pulled down to cover his face, Croom bolted from a meal into the arms of police, who recovered a semi-automatic weapon. He was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g)(1) and released pending trial. Ten days later Croom invaded a fast food restaurant, drew a gun, ordered the staff into the meat locker (threatening them with death if they did not cooperate), and emptied the till. He did not get far, and his capture led to another federal weapons charge. Croom pleaded guilty to both; another similar charge was dismissed as part of a plea bargain. His sentence of 160 months' imprisonment exceeds the guideline range of 110-137 months for a level 28 offense by someone with a criminal history category of IV, and he appeals from the upward departure.
A district judge may give a sentence exceeding the range specified by the Sentencing Guidelines only on account of circumstances "not adequately taken into consideration" by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(b). The district judge gave this explanation of his decision:
Having reviewed all of the matters in this case and in considering the offenses which did not count for criminal history score points reflected in [the pre-sentence investigation report] as well as the fact of the recent, the short period of time which elapsed between the defendant's last incarceration and the first of these offenses and his conduct on [the fast food robbery] following his release [after the initial gun arrest], and considering the nature of the offenses reflected in [the presentence investigation report plus the charges to which Croom pleaded guilty], I find that the information upon which I am making this determination is reliable and that the criminal history category of Roman numeral IV does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendant's past criminal conduct, and perhaps more so the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes. I think there is a clearly ascertainable and projectable pattern here by this defendant of ever increasing in ever more dangerous offenses as he proceeds through life. So an upward departure of the applicable criminal history score would be appropriate in this case. Since the juvenile matters are not considered. And for the other reasons I previously indicated. So I will depart upward to a criminal history category of VI....
The judge did not reveal which of these factors he believed the Sentencing Commission has "not adequately taken into consideration" or why he increased the criminal history category from IV to VI rather than V. Croom has earned a substantial sentence, but 137 months' imprisonment--more than 11 years without possibility of parole--is stern punishment. The stated rationale for tacking on two years is problematic under Sec. 3553(b).
The judge's explanation starts with the observation that the Guidelines did not count two of Croom's juvenile convictions. Under U.S.S.G. Sec. 4A1.2(d)(2) juvenile convictions the sentences for which ended more than five years before the commission of the latest offense do not contribute any criminal history points. Far from representing an aspect of criminal history that the Sentencing Commission overlooked or did not consider adequately, this exclusion is a conscious decision, one a district judge may not override by the mechanism of an upward departure. United States v. Fonner, 920 F.2d 1330, 1333-34 (7th Cir.1990). The Sentencing Commission believed that old juvenile convictions should be "forgiven" in assigning criminal history points; that the district judge is less forgiving than the Commission does not authorize him to strike out on a different path. To forgive is not necessarily to forget, however; as we explain below the judge may consider the juvenile convictions as part of the larger picture when deciding whether to depart under the criteria of U.S.S.G. Sec. 4A1.3. See United States v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Spears
...Thus, the sentencing judge should not have included them in his calculation of Spears' criminal history points. See United States v. Croom, 50 F.3d 433 (7th Cir.1995) (juvenile convictions committed more than five years before the instant offense may not be counted directly to the criminal ......
-
U.S. v. Paredes, 94-3913
...and where the defendant has a history of committing additional crimes shortly after being released from custody, United States v. Croom, 50 F.3d 433, 435 (7th Cir.1995) (affirming departure, in part, based on finding that defendant "scarcely gets out of jail's shadow before committing anoth......
-
U.S. v. Pullen, 95-3790
...(This is an area minutely regulated by the guidelines). See U.S.S.G. §§ 4A1.1 (application notes 1-3), 4A1.2(d); United States v. Croom, 50 F.3d 433, 435 (7th Cir.1995); United States v. Davis, 48 F.3d 277, 279 (7th Cir.1995).) He did AFFIRMED. ...
-
U.S. v. King, 97-2249
...opinion as to how many offenses would be sufficient to take a case outside the "heartland" of section 4A1.1(d). Cf. United States v. Croom, 50 F.3d 433, 435 (7th Cir.1995) (district judge failed to explain why subsections (d) and (e) of section 4A1.1 did not sufficiently account for the fac......