United States v. Leekley
| Decision Date | 29 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:18-mj-11-MJF |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Charles F. LEEKLEY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Kyle N. Simmons, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, Michelle Kathleen Daffin, Northern District of Florida, Aine Ahmed, US Attorney, Panama City, FL, Miles McCoy, Tyndall AFB, FL, for Plaintiff
Rudolph Carroll Shepard, Jr., Shepard Law PA, Jean Marie Downing, Downing Law Offices PA, Panama City, FL, for Defendant
This cause is before the court on the defendant's "Motion for Reconsideration/Objection to Sentence." (Doc. 28). For the reasons set forth below, this court denies the motion and overrules the objection.
On February 12, 2018, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida charged defendant Charles F. Leekley ("Leekley"), in a two-count information. Count one charged Leekley with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or controlled substance, in violation of Section 316.193 of the Florida Statutes, and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 7 and 13. Count two charged him with driving a motor vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit, in violation of Section 316.183, Florida Statutes, and Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 634.25. (Doc. 1).
On December 12, 2018, Leekley and his attorney appeared for a change of plea hearing. The government orally moved to amend count one of the information to charge Leekley with careless driving, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 316.1925. This court granted the motion to amend. Count two was not amended.
During the plea hearing, Leekley was advised of the maximum penalties of the charged offenses. Specifically, this court advised Leekley that count one carried the following maximum penalties: (1) thirty days of imprisonment; (2) a fine of $ 5,000; (3) five years of probation; and (4) a $ 5 special assessment. When asked if he understood that these were the maximum penalties, Leekley replied in the affirmative. Leekley's attorney likewise confirmed that she had advised Leekley that he faced these penalties.
At the plea hearing, Leekley's attorney did not object or claim that this court erroneously stated the maximum penalties. Rather, Leekley's attorney simply requested that the court not incarcerate Leekley and instead impose only a fine. The government concurred in this request. This court reminded Leekley that, regardless of his attorney and the government's request, this court could impose any sentence that did not exceed the maximum penalties set by statute and regulation. Leekley indicated that he understood this.
During the plea hearing, the government orally stated the facts that it was prepared to prove in the event the case proceeded to trial. Among other things, the government noted that it could establish that, on or about November 23, 2017, police officers observed Leekley failing to maintain his lane while traveling "at a high rate of speed." When the officers paced Leekley's car, Leekley was driving approximately 58 miles per hour in a zone which had a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour. Under oath, Leekley agreed that the material facts stated by the government were accurate.1 Leekley pleaded guilty to the offenses as orally amended by the government.
After Leekley pleaded guilty, this court inquired whether the parties desired a presentence investigation report or whether Leekley desired to be sentenced that day. The parties indicated that they did not believe that the preparation of a presentence investigation report was useful, and Leekley's attorney indicated that Leekley desired to be sentenced that day. This court provided Leekley and his attorney an opportunity to address this court. Leekley's attorney requested that this court not incarcerate Leekley because that would jeopardize his career as a merchant mariner. She suggested that a fine would be sufficient punishment.
A pretrial services report was provided to the parties and this court. That report indicated that Leekley had the following history:
Date of Arrest Agency Charge Disposition
05/15/2005 Hennepin County Cts. 1&2: Driving 03/02/2009
(Age 41) S.O. While Impaired Cts. 1-3
Minneapolis, MN Ct. 3: Traffic-No Dismissed
Case No.: Proof of Insurance Ct. 4: Unknown
27CR0830965 Ct. 4: Speeding
07/01/2007 Hennepin County Cts. 1&2: Operate 10/18/2007
(Age 43) S.O. Motorboat While Cts. 1&2
Minneapolis, MN Impaired Dismissed;
Case No.: Ct. 3: Careless Ct. 3: Guilty-1
27CR7042995 Boating year Probation,
Fine.
05/11/2011 Minnetrista Public Driving While 06/21/2011:
(Age 46) Safety Department Impaired Guilty-30 days
Minnetrista, MN Jail followed by 2
Case No.: years of probation
27CR1113605
During the sentencing phase of the hearing, Leekley and his attorney attempted to explain and minimize Leekley's history. After this court noted that it would be imposing a sentence consistent with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), this court imposed the following sentence:
After this sentence was imposed, this court inquired whether Leekley objected to either the entry of the plea or the sentence imposed. Leekley's attorney responded that Leekley had no objection. More specifically, neither Leekley nor his attorney objected to the term of probation imposed by this court.
On December 18, 2018, the judgment was entered. (Doc. 27). On December 20, 2018, Leekley filed a "Motion for Reconsideration/Objection to Sentence." (Doc. 28). As discussed below, Leekley argues that the sentence imposed by this court was unlawful insofar as it entailed a term of probation.
A federal court may not consider the merits of a motion unless and until it is certain that it has subject matter jurisdiction. See Belleri v. United States , 712 F.3d 543, 547 (11th Cir. 2013). "[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking." Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co. , 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). A federal court must deny a motion without reaching the merits if it concludes that it has no jurisdiction. Goodman ex rel. Goodman v. Sipos , 259 F.3d 1327, 1331, n. 6 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Capitol Leasing Co. v. FDIC , 999 F.2d 188, 191 (7th Cir. 1993) ).
Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that a court may, within 14 days after sentencing, "correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error." Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). Pursuant to the explicit time limit imposed by Rule 35(a), a court must act within the requisite 14 days "or not at all." United States v. Phillips , 597 F.3d 1190, 1201 (11th Cir. 2010).2 Rule 35(a)'s scope and strict deadline were designed "to promote the finality of sentences and enable the parties to appeal a sentence promptly." Phillips , 597 F.3d at 1196. Thus, the 14-day limitation is "jurisdictional," and a court loses its ability to consider a motion to reconsider a sentence upon the expiration of the 14 days. Phillips , 597 F.3d at 1197 ; United States v. Diaz-Clark , 292 F.3d 1310, 1319 (11th Cir. 2002) ; United States v. Morrison , 204 F.3d 1091, 1093 (11th Cir. 2000).
Here, this court sentenced Leekley on December 12, 2018. Eight days later, on December 20, 2018, Leekley filed his motion for reconsideration/objection, leaving this court with only six days—including Christmas—to consider his motion before the 14-day deadline expired. On December 26, 2018, before this court's deadline to rule on Leekley's motion/objection expired, Leekley filed his notice of appeal, which divested this court of jurisdiction to consider the motion/objection. Shewchun v. United States , 797 F.2d 941, 941 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) ().3 Because the 14-day deadline imposed by Rule 35(a) has already expired, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Leekley's motion. Phillips , 597 F.3d at 1201 ; United States v. McGaughy , 670 F.3d 1149, 1157 (10th Cir. 2012) ; United States v. Griffin , 524 F.3d 71, 83 (1st Cir. 2008). For that reason, this court must deny/overrule Leekley's motion/objection.
Additionally, even if this court enjoyed jurisdiction to consider Leekley's motion/objection, Leekley failed to demonstrate that this court committed an error of law when it sentenced Leekley to a term of probation. According to Leekley, the term of probation imposed by this court constituted an unlawful sentence because the law did not authorize this court to impose a term of probation. (Doc. 28 at ¶ 4).
Leekley's conduct occurred on a portion of a military installation—Tyndall Air Force Base—over which the federal government exercised concurrent jurisdiction with the State of Florida.4 The government, therefore, assimilated Florida law to charge Leekley with the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial