U.S. v. Valera-Elizondo, VALERA-ELIZONDO and R

• Decision Date: 14 May 1985
• Docket Number: VALERA-ELIZONDO and R,No. 84-2715,84-2715
• Citation: 761 F.2d 1020
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscaraul Valera-Garza, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 1020

761 F.2d 1020

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar VALERA-ELIZONDO and Raul Valera-Garza, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 84-2715.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

May 14, 1985.

Yzaguirre, Chapa & Rocha, Roberto J. Yzaguirre, McAllen, Tex., for defendants-appellants.

Daniel K. Hedges, U.S. Atty., Susan L. Yarbrough, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., Samuel Rosenthal, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before JOHNSON, JOLLY, and HILL, Circuit Judges.

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge:

This appeal from an order denying bail pending appeal involves an interpretation of the provision of the Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3143(b), which provides that a defendant shall be detained pending appeal of a conviction unless the court finds that the appeal "raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial." Because we conclude that the district court misconstrued this provision to mean that a court may grant bail only if it finds that its own rulings are likely to be reversed on appeal, we vacate the order denying bail pending appeal and remand to the district court for reconsideration in light of the standard which is set forth below.

BACKGROUND

On September 19, 1984, a jury convicted co-defendants Oscar Valera-Elizondo and Raul Valera-Garza of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute (Count Three) and possession with intent to distribute cocaine (Count Four), in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2, 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1), and 846. Following sentencing, ¹ defendants filed a notice of appeal ² and moved for bail pending their appeal on the merits of their case. On November 6, 1984, the district court held a hearing pursuant to the newly enacted Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3143, to determine whether defendants should be released from detention pending their appeal. ³

After the hearing, the district court made findings of fact in which the court concluded that: (1) the defendants failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that they would not flee pending their appeal, however, certain bond conditions would assure that defendants would not flee; (2) if released on bond, defendants would not pose a danger to any person or the community; (3) the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and does raise a substantial question of law or fact; but (4) the appeal is not likely to result in a reversal or an order for a new trial. In accordance with these findings, the district court denied defendants bail and ordered that they be detained pending the outcome of their appeal. It is from this order that Elizondo and Garza appeal.

THE 1984 BAIL REFORM ACT

The portion of the 1984 Act that is germane to the instant discussion provides:

(b) Release of detention pending appeal by the defendant.--The judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, be detained, unless the judicial officer finds--

(1) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released pursuant to section 3142(b) or (c); and

(2) that the appeal is not for purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.

If the judicial officer makes such findings, he shall order the release of the person in accordance with the provisions of section 3142(b) or (3).

18 U.S.C. Sec. 3143(b). While finding that the defendants' appeal was not for the purpose of delay and raised a substantial question of law or fact, the district court denied bail on the grounds that: "[T]he Court does NOT find that the appeal is likely to result in a reversal or an order for a new trial. Indeed, this Court is persuaded it would be inconsistent with judicial duty for this Court to believe that reversal is likely and not grant a new trial." Record, Order of November 20, 1984 (emphasis supplied). All parties agree ⁴ that the above-emphasized language demonstrates that the district court misinterpreted section 3143(b)(2) to mean that a court may grant bail only if it finds that its own rulings are likely to be reversed on appeal.

It appears that this Circuit has never squarely addressed the question of the correct interpretation of the language of the 1984 Bail Reform Act which conditions the granting of bail pending appeal upon a finding that the appeal "raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial." ⁵ See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3143(b)(2). Three other circuit courts of appeal, however, have addressed this precise question. See United States v. Giancola, 754 F.2d 898 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Handy, 753 F.2d 1487 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Miller, 753 F.2d 19 (3d Cir.1985). We look, therefore, to the decisions of the other circuits for guidance.

The Third Circuit, the first court of appeals to consider this issue, rejected the same interpretation of section 3143(b)(2) advanced by the district court in the instant case, stating:

The statutory language requiring a finding that the appeal 'raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial' cannot be read as meaning, as the district court apparently believed, that the district court must conclude that its own order is likely to be reversed.

....

... [W]e are unwilling to attribute to Congress the cynicism that would underlie the provision were it to be read as requiring the district court to determine the likelihood of its own error. A district United States v. Miller, 753 F.2d at 23. The Third Circuit went on to hold that the proper interpretation of section 3143(b)(2) requires the making of two determinations by the court. ⁶ First, the court must determine that the question raised on appeal is substantial, that is to say a question that is either novel, which has not been decided by controlling precedent, or which is fairly doubtful. Secondly, the court must determine whether that issue is sufficiently important to the merits that a contrary appellate ruling is likely to require reversal or a new trial. Id.

judge who, on reflection, concludes that s/he erred may rectify that error when ruling on post-trial motions. Judges do not knowingly leave substantial errors uncorrected, or deliberately misconstrue applicable precedent. Thus, it would have been capricious of Congress to have conditioned bail only on the willingness of a trial judge to certify his or her own error.

Finally, the Miller Court concluded that the Act established the following criteria which the defendant has the burden of proving if he seeks bail pending appeal:

(1) the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released;

(2) the appeal is not for the purpose of delay;

(3) the appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact; and

(4) if that substantial question is determined favorably to the defendant on appeal, that decision is likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial of all counts on which imprisonment has been imposed.

753 F.2d at 24.

In United States v. Giancola, 754 F.2d 898, the Eleventh Circuit adopted the Miller interpretation in construing section 3143(b). The court stated:

We think that the Third Circuit's interpretation effectuates congressional intent. The legislative history indicates that while Congress did not intend for the 1984 Bail Act to eliminate bail pending appeal, it did intend to limit its availability.

Giancola, 754 F.2d at 900 (emphasis added). The Eleventh Circuit then further examined the Act's legislative history and concluded that Congress specifically intended to reverse the presumption in favor of bail pending appeal that existed under the predecessor statute, the Bail Reform Act of 1966. Under the prior Act, a convicted defendant was entitled to bail unless the court found that no one or more conditions of release would reasonably assure that the defendant would not flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community, or if it appeared that the appeal was frivolous or taken for the purpose of delay. Act of June 22, 1966, Pub.L. 89-465, Sec. 3(a), 80 Stat. 215 (formerly codified at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3148). Pursuant to the former Act, the burden was on the government to show that the convicted defendant should be detained pending the outcome of his appeal. The 1984 Act was intended to reverse the presumption so that the conviction is presumed correct and the burden is on the convicted defendant to overcome that presumption. Id; see S.Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 26 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 3209. The Giancola Court noted further:

The Third Circuit's interpretation effectuates this congressional intent since, under its interpretation, 'a defendant seeking bail on appeal must show that his or her appeal has more merit than under the discarded "frivolous" test, but ... the court [still has] discretion to give bail in those cases, which will consequently be considerably reduced in number, where [a] defendant can meet the criteria.' Miller, at 753 F.2d 23-24.

Id. at 901.

In regard to the Third Circuit's suggestion that a "substantial question" is one Similarly, the Ninth Circuit, in United States v. Handy, 753 F.2d at 1489, agreed with the Miller interpretation and stated that " 'substantial' defines the level of merit of the question presented and 'likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial' defines the type of question that must be presented." (emphasis in original). The Handy Court then held that "the statute simply requires the defendant to demonstrate the existence of a...