U.S. v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 05 June 1991
• Docket Number: Nos. 90-5034,90-5035,s. 90-5034
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Francis JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo Bernard SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 47

935 F.2d 47

4 Fed.Sent.R. 68

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Francis JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo Bernard SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 90-5034, 90-5035.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 9, 1991.

Decided June 5, 1991.

John Zwerling, Zwerling, Mark & Sutherland, P.C., Alexandria, Va., for defendant-appellant Smith.

William B. Moffitt, William B. Moffitt & Associates, argued (Lisa B. Kelmer, William B. Moffitt & Associates, on brief), Alexandria, Va., for defendant-appellant Johnson.

Robert Chesnut, Asst. U.S. Atty., argued (Henry E. Hudson, U.S. Atty., on brief), Alexandria, Va., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and COPENHAVER, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

WILKINS, Circuit Judge:

Ricardo Bernard Smith and Michael Francis Johnson appeal their convictions of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C.A. Sec. 841(a)(1) (West 1981), and resulting sentences. Appellants' primary assigned error is that an ex parte presentence conference between their probation officers and the district judge violated their sixth amendment rights to effective assistance of counsel and confrontation of witnesses. We affirm.

I.

A Drug Enforcement Administration "reverse sting" undercover operation culminated in a meeting of Smith, Johnson, an informant, and an undercover DEA agent at a Virginia hotel. Smith met the informant in the parking lot and stated that Johnson was his "back man." At Smith's direction, Johnson retrieved a bag containing money from Johnson's vehicle and handed the bag to Smith. While Johnson remained in the parking lot, Smith, the informant, and the undercover agent proceeded to a prearranged hotel room containing a hidden video recording device. After they counted the money totalling approximately $153,000, Smith stated that he would return to the parking lot and instruct Johnson to bring the cocaine to the hotel room. After Smith met briefly with Johnson in the parking lot, Johnson removed a bag containing fifteen kilograms of cocaine from the undercover agent's vehicle. Johnson and Smith were then apprehended.

The jury returned verdicts of guilty and the district court denied appellants' motion for judgment of acquittal. Prior to the sentencing hearing, the district judge met in chambers with the two probation officers who had prepared appellants' presentence reports. During the sentencing hearing, questions by defense counsel attempting to elicit the substance of the probation officers' ex parte conversation with the court were not allowed. Defense counsel were allowed to examine the probation officers at length regarding alleged factual inaccuracies in their reports. The probation officers were also questioned about sources of information relied upon by them in reaching their preliminary determinations on various factors relevant to application of the sentencing guidelines. In response to questions regarding acceptance by the court of probation officer recommendations, one probation officer testified that the court did not always follow their sentencing recommendations, and that it was not uncommon for the court to disagree with the version of facts advanced by the government.

Appellants also contested the probation officers' recommendations regarding the applicable guidelines range. After an evidentiary hearing, and based upon its independent findings of fact, the court determined that the appropriate offense level was 32, rather than a higher level recommended by the probation officers. Neither appellants nor the government contest the judge's findings of fact or the correctness of the application of the guidelines.

II.

Appellants claim that ex parte communications between the probation officers and the court denied them their sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Appellants correctly observe that a right to counsel applies during critical stages in the sentencing process, Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 134, 88 S.Ct. 254, 256, 19 L.Ed.2d 336 (1967), and includes a right to effective assistance of counsel, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As the Supreme Court has emphasized, "an accused is entitled to counsel at any 'critical stage of the prosecution.' " Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066 (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 382-83, 88 S.Ct. 967, 970-71, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968)). Sixth amendment guarantees provide assistance of counsel to an accused " 'confronted with both the intricacies of the law and the advocacy of the public prosecutor.' " United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 654, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2044, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984) (quoting United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300, 309, 93 S.Ct. 2568, 2573, 37 L.Ed.2d 619 (1973)). However, it does not necessarily follow that every step in the presentence phase is "critical" within the meaning of the sixth amendment.

Appellants concede that ex parte communications between a probation officer and the court were not violative of an accused's sixth amendment right to counsel under pre-guidelines case law. Prior to the implementation of sentencing guidelines, such ex parte presentence communications were a commonplace and accepted practice uniformly upheld against various constitutional challenges. See, e.g., United States v. Story, 716 F.2d 1088 (6th Cir.1983); United States v. Davis, 527 F.2d 1110 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 953, 96 S.Ct. 1729, 48 L.Ed.2d 196 (1976). Probation officers were regarded as an extension of the court who provided the sentencing judge with a wide range of information about the defendant and the offense. Ex parte communications were permitted because a probation officer acted "as an arm of the court" in preparing presentence reports. United States v. Gonzales, 765 F.2d 1393, 1398 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1068, 106 S.Ct. 826, 88 L.Ed.2d 798 (1986).

Appellants claim that today a probation officer acts as a fact-finder and potential advocate when a probation officer's recommendation regarding guidelines application differs from that of the prosecution or defense counsel. Although the advent of guidelines sentencing has changed the role of a probation officer, this change does not carry the constitutional significance urged by appellants. Throughout the process of interviewing a defendant, preparing a presentence report, and discussing the report during a presentence conference with the court, a probation officer continues to be a neutral, information-gathering agent of the court, not an agent of the prosecution. See United States v. Jackson, 886 F.2d 838, 844 (7th Cir.1989).

The sixth amendment right to counsel guarantees the assistance of counsel to a defendant confronted by "prosecutorial forces;" constitutional protections need not be invoked in the absence of adversarial proceedings. See Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 430, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 1145, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986) (quoting Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 170, 106 S.Ct. 477, 484, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)); see also Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 1882, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972) (a sixth amendment critical stage is adversarial in nature). For example, several circuits have held that a presentence interview is not a critical stage because a probation officer does not have an adversarial role during a presentence interview with a defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Woods, 907 F.2d 1540, 1543 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 792, 112 L.Ed.2d 854 (1991); Jackson, 886 F.2d at 844-45 (7th Cir.1989). But see United States v. Herrera-Figueroa, 918 F.2d 1430, 1433 (9th Cir.1990). In declining to find that a right to counsel attaches during a presentence interview, courts have reasoned that a probation officer is an agent of the court and assists the court in arriving at a just sentence. Brown v. Butler, 811 F.2d 938, 941 (5th Cir.1987).

We find this reasoning, persuasive in the case of a presentence interview, compelling when applied to appellants' claim of a right to counsel during an ex parte presentence conference. During these nonadversarial communications, the court confers with its own agent in the absence of the defendant or any representative of the prosecution. We hold that an ex parte presentence conference between a court and a probation officer is not a critical stage of the sentencing proceedings.

III.

Appellants also claim a violation of their sixth amendment right to confrontation because the district court refused to allow cross-examination of the probation officers regarding the substance of communications not disclosed in the presentence report. Appellants do not argue that ex parte communications between a court and probation officer have always been constitutionally suspect on confrontation clause grounds. Rather, they argue that ex parte conferences have become problematic in the era of sentencing guidelines. We disagree. When a probation officer imparts information to a sentencing court as its neutral agent, the interests underlying the confrontation clause are not implicated. See United States v. Beaulieu, 893 F.2d 1177, 1180 (10th Cir.) (defendant "does not have an absolute right to confront witnesses whose information is made available to the [sentencing] court"), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 3302, 111 L.Ed.2d 811 (1990); United States v. Kikumura, 918 F.2d 1084, 1102-03 & n. 19 (3d Cir.1990) (court reluctant to impose confrontation clause jurisprudence upon sentencing process).

Guidelines sentencing has formalized the sentencing process by requiring the sentencing judge to make specific findings of fact and articulate reasons for a particular sentence in open court. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 6A1.3, comment. (Nov.1990); see also United States v. Belgard, 894 F.2d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir.199...