U.S. v. Martin, 89-5181

• Decision Date: 18 September 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-5181,89-5181
• Citation: 913 F.2d 1172
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis H. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 1172

913 F.2d 1172

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis H. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 89-5181.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Argued Sept. 18, 1989.

Decided Sept. 18, 1990.

Timothy R. DiScenza, Van S. Vincent (argued), Asst. U.S. Attys., Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellee.

Jack D. Kopald (argued), McDonnell, Boyd, Smith & Solmson, Memphis, Tenn., for defendant-appellant.

Before MERRITT, Chief Judge, KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge, and SIMPSON, District Judge. ^*

KRUPANSKY, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-appellant Louis H. Martin has appealed from a second sentence entered nunc pro tunc by the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee after its jurisdiction had lapsed by operation of law effectively nullifying a previous sentence entered 134 days earlier by the same court.

On May 10, 1988, Louis H. Martin entered a plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846. The indictment charged Martin with offenses occurring after November 1, 1987, the effective date of the sentencing guidelines promulgated under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (the Act), 28 U.S.C. Secs. 991-98.

On June 7, 1988, in another case, after Martin pleaded guilty but before his sentencing, the district court decided that the Sentencing Commission established by the Act violated, inter alia, the separation-of-powers doctrine, and that the Act, including the sentencing guidelines promulgated by the Commission, was unconstitutional. At the time of its decision in United States v. Thomas, et al., 699 F.Supp. 147 (W.D.Tenn.1988), the district court acknowledged the constitutional review of the Act pending before the Supreme Court. The district court, in the Thomas case, elected to initiate and implement a dual sentencing procedure during the period before a final disposition of the issue was announced by the Supreme Court:

In each case the court will announce two sentences--one imposed under the law prior to November 1, 1987 and one imposed pursuant to the guidelines.... [D]efendants will commence service of the sentence under the law prior to November 1, 1987. The judgment and commitment order will reflect this sentence. If the Act is ultimately found to be constitutional, the guideline sentence will then take effect and a new judgment and commitment order will be entered. All defendants will be advised of this procedure at sentencing and the possibility that their guideline sentence will later become effective. ¹

At Martin's sentencing hearing on September 2, 1988, he was informed of the dual sentencing procedure and the reasons therefor. Martin's counsel objected to any dual sentence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court announced its dual sentences.

On September 22, 1988, subsequent to the sentencing hearing, the district court, ignoring the sentencing guidelines it had previously declared unconstitutional in Thomas, filed its journal entry of judgment of conviction and commitment, which read in pertinent part as follows:

JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

Case Number: 87-20218-G

THE DEFENDANT ENTERED A PLEA OF ... guilty ... as to count(s) One (1)....

THERE WAS A finding ... of guilty as to count(s) One (1).

* * * * * *

THE DEFENDANT IS CONVICTED OF THE OFFENSE(S) OF: Conspiracy (possession with the intent to distribute cocaine) in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846 as charged in Count One of the Indictment.

IT IS THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT THAT: As to Count One, the defendant is sentenced to three (3) years imprisonment.

The defendant has been granted leave by the Court to report to the institution designated by the Attorney General at his own expense. Upon designation of an institution to the United States Marshal, the Clerk will issue an Order to Surrender stating when and where the defendant is to report. Upon receipt of the Order, the defendant will report to the Office of the Clerk to acknowledge receipt of the Order.

This document entered on docket sheet in compliance with Rule 55 and/or 32(b) FRCrP on 9-22-88.

[There was no probation.]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall pay a total special assessment of $50.00 pursuant to Title 18, U.S.C. Section 3013 for count(s) Count One (1) [sic] as follows: $50.00 special assessment on Count One (1).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT counts Two (2) and Three (3) are DISMISSED on the motion of the United States.

* * * * * *

September 2, 1988

Date of Imposition of Sentence

Julia Smith Gibbons [script]

Signature of Judicial Official

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS

Name and Title of Judicial Officer

September 19, 1988 [script]

Date

No appeal was perfected from the September 22, 1988 journalized judgment of conviction and commitment by either the appellant or the government. No appeal having been taken within the allotted time, the judgment of conviction and commitment was executed and the appellant was incarcerated to serve his sentence on November 1, 1988.

On January 18, 1989, the Supreme Court upheld the Act including the sentencing guidelines in United States v. Mistretta, 488 U.S. 361, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1989). On February 3, 1989, 134 days after the September 22, 1988 final entry of judgment of conviction and commitment and after the jurisdiction of the district court had lapsed on October 24, 1988, it entered, sua sponte, a second judgment of conviction and commitment order pursuant to sentencing guidelines which enhanced the original commitment of September 22, 1988. The second order was entered nunc pro tunc to September 22, 1988.

Absent an appeal from the journal entry of September 22, 1988, the district court was divested of all jurisdiction on October 24, 1988 when the time for appeal expired. Fed.R.App.P. 4(b), 26. ² Exhaustive research has failed to disclose legal precedent or procedure that permitted the district court to sua sponte re-invoke its jurisdiction 134 days after it filed its September 22, 1988 final order of conviction and commitment and after its original jurisdiction had lapsed, to enter its second journal entry increasing the defendant's sentence which he was already serving. See United States v. Minor, 846 F.2d 1184, 1187 (9th Cir.1988) ("[A] district court does not have inherent power to resentence defendant at any time. Its authority to do so must flow either from the court of appeals mandate under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2106 ... or from [Fed.R.Crim.P.] 35.") (citation omitted); United States v. Henry, 709 F.2d 298, 303, 307-08, 317 (5th Cir.1983) (en banc) (although a plurality opinion, a majority agreed that there was neither statutory nor case authority which permitted a district court to increase a final, lawful sentence). ³ Accordingly, the September 22, 1988 judgment of conviction and commitment was the district court's final sentencing order.

It is true that the trial judge, at the September 2, 1988 sentencing hearing, explained with clarity the dual sentencing procedure that she announced in her earlier Thomas decision and it is equally true that the defendant acknowledged his understanding of the procedure although his counsel objected to its implementation in the case at bar; however, the original journalized judgment of September 22, 1988 made no reference to the alternative sentence ⁴ and must therefore stand alone, independent of the dialogue that occurred between the parties during the sentencing hearing for the reason that courts speak only through their journal entries. Goldman v. Commissioner, 388 F.2d 476 (6th Cir.1967) ("a court speaks only through its orders"); United States v. Eisner, 329 F.2d 410 (6th Cir.1964) (court ordered no entry of commitment); Chapman v. United States, 247 F.2d 879 (6th Cir.1957); Odekirk v. Ryan, 85 F.2d 313 (6th Cir.1936); I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Tee Pee Rubber Co., 295 F. 479 (6th Cir.1924). See also Flannigan v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 888 F.2d 127 (6th Cir.1989) (unpublished per curiam) ("a court speaks officially only through its orders, not its opinions"). Moreover, there exists no current or historical statutory or judicial precedent to support a legal theory of "conditional sentencing" that could or would have, under facts similar to those of the instant case, perpetuated the jurisdiction of the trial court beyond October 24, 1988, the date upon which its first judgment of conviction and commitment became final.

Pursuant to the procedures in force prior to the adoption of the sentencing guidelines, a criminal sentence was a definite period of penal confinement and/or a monetary fine coupled, when appropriate, with a period of special parole or supervised release inflicted upon a defendant as a legal consequence of guilt resulting from a plea of guilty or conviction in a criminal prosecution, ⁵ as distinguished from a prescribed course of personal behavior mandated by a trial court, imposed upon the future conduct of the defendant as a condition for suspending the imposition or execution of the penal confinement and/or monetary payment of the sentence. ⁶

The old statutory language appeared to reflect a congressional intent to condition, not the underlying sentence of the defendant, but rather only his future court-mandated conduct which was the basis for the trial court's exercise of discretion to suspend the execution of penal confinement and/or monetary payment of the sentence. The suspension of the execution of the imposed penal incarceration and/or monetary fine was, in all instances, conditioned upon the performance of acts within the personal control of the defendant and not some independent third party or entity such as the Supreme Court as suggested by the dissent.

The current statutes, like those procedures predating the sentencing guidelines, equally fail to support the concept of continuing trial court jurisdiction. Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582 explicitly provides that a sentence to imprisonment, as in the instant case, cannot be...