United States v. Winston, CAUSE NO.: 1:10-CR-67-TLS
| Decision Date | 22 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | CAUSE NO.: 1:10-CR-67-TLS |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RICKY L. WINSTON |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the Court on a Sentencing Memorandum [ECF No. 44] filed on February 4, 2013, by the Defendant, Ricky L. Winston. For the reasons discussed, the Court will grant in part the Defendant's request and will sentence the Defendant to 33 months of confinement on his conviction.
On August 25, 2010, the Government entered a single-count Indictment [ECF No. 1] against the Defendant, charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm on or about May 19, 2010, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). A United States Marshal arrested the Defendant on September 30, 2011. The Magistrate Judge arraigned the Defendant on October 6, and ordered the Defendant released under certain terms and conditions. The Defendant has been on pretrial release since October 6, 2011.
On April 23, 2012, the Government submitted a Plea Agreement [ECF No. 23] signed by the Defendant, in which he agreed to plead guilty to the single-count Indictment in exchange for the Government's recommendation that the Court impose a sentence equal to the minimum of the applicable Guideline range. At a May 2, 2012, Change of Plea Hearing, the Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the single-count Indictment, and this Court adjudged him guilty onMay 17. The United States Probation Officer submitted a draft Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) [ECF No. 30] on August 20, and the Defendant entered an Objection [ECF No. 33] to the draft PSR on September 6.
The PSR indicates that on May 18, 2010, a Fort Wayne Police Department officer received an anonymous tip that a male by the name of Ricky was growing marijuana on the back porch of his house in Fort Wayne. The officer went to the address and, from an alley 20 feet away, was able to identify two pots containing approximately 20 live marijuana plants on the back porch of the residence. Officers therefore knocked on the door, and when the Defendant opened the door, the lead officer could smell a strong odor of marijuana coming from inside the apartment. The Defendant consented to the officers conducting a protective sweep of the apartment. In plain view, officers observed the burned ends of marijuana cigarettes. They opened a closet door to confirm that no one was hiding in the closet and found it lined with aluminum foil, with a dangling florescent light, plant stands, and active mold growth. The Defendant refused to consent to a complete search of the premises, so officers obtained a search warrant. Upon execution of the warrant, officers found a .45 caliber handgun on a shelf in a bedroom closet. The gun was unloaded, but next to it was a magazine loaded with three rounds of ammunition. On the same shelf in the closet was a box containing a digital scale and several baggies of marijuana. The officers also found 20 growing marijuana plants on the Defendant's back porch. The Defendant stated that he did not know why he had left the plants in plain view on the back porch, and asked the officers if they had smelled marijuana from the alley. Moreover, the Defendant stated that he had never attempted to harvest or use the marijuana he was growing. He also stated that he bought the firearm for protection.
In his Objection to the PSR, the Defendant requested clarification concerning references to other criminal investigations in paragraph 11 of the PSR. The Defendant also objected to the imposition of a 4-level increase for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Finally, the Defendant noted that he would be filing a sentencing memorandum to address his history of mental illness and the factors listed at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
On October 15, 2012, the Court conducted an evidentiary hearing in this matter. The parties called only one witness, Larry Hoyle, the Defendant's case manager at Park Center mental health services, who testified about his relationship with the Defendant and about the Defendant's mental health history. Hoyle testified that he has been employed by Park Center for almost 20 years, and has been a recovery specialist for four or five years. He is trained to recognize mental health and mental illness. He has been meeting with the Defendant in regular appointments since December 2011, for a total of approximately 50 sessions. He testified that, according to the Defendant's mental health records, the Defendant has been diagnosed with two Axis I diagnoses—paranoid schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress disorder.1 Hoyle testified that in the Defendant's case, his paranoid schizophrenia manifests itself in disorganized thinking and delusional thinking. Specifically, after the murder of his son in Illinois in January 2010, the Defendant began to fear that his son's killers would come for him, although there was no reason to believe that his son's killers even knew who the Defendant was or where he lived. This fear led the Defendant to a period of unrestful sleep, during which he would wake up several timesduring the night to look out the windows and to check that his doors were locked. Hoyle testified that the Defendant experienced a breakthrough in his treatment in March 2012 when he received word that his son's killers had been incarcerated and charged with murder. After March 2012, the Defendant's sleep pattern had normalized. Finally, Hoyle testified that the Defendant knew it was wrong for him to possess a firearm, but, because he feared for his life, the Defendant chose to purchase the firearm in order to protect himself from the people who murdered his son.
After reviewing the transcript from the October 15 hearing, the Defendant filed a Sentencing Memorandum [ECF No. 44] on February 4, 2013. In his Sentencing Memorandum, the Defendant requests that the Court not apply the 4-level enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense because the Government did not introduce lab tests proving that the plants recovered from his residence were actually marijuana, and because the record does not show that the Defendant cultivated marijuana for his own use or to sell. The Defendant also requests that the Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), consider his paranoid schizophrenia and the extent to which it caused him to purchase the firearm in order to protect himself from his son's killers. Because such a purchase is not the sort of possession intended to be prevented by § 922(g)(1), he argues, and because of a diminished mental capacity under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13, the Defendant requests that the Court sentence him to 24 months instead of the Guidelines recommended sentencing range of 51-63 months.
The Government filed a Response [ECF No. 45] on March 19, arguing for imposition of the 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) because the Defendant possessed the firearm in connection with the felony of manufacturing marijuana. The Government points out that the definition of "manufacture" in 21 U.S.C. § 802(15) has nothing to do with the purposefor which a drug is manufactured. Further, the Government notes that it "need only prove the type and amount of drugs by a preponderance of the evidence" on sentencing. United States v. Turner, 203 F.3d 1010, 1015 (7th Cir. 2000). Because the lead Fort Wayne Police Department officer on the case had extensive experience in recognizing marijuana and had participated in approximately 1000 marijuana investigations, the Government argues that it has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the plants recovered were marijuana. Finally, the Government concedes that the Defendant's significant history of mental illness, considered under § 3553(a), justifies a sentence within the 33-41 month range, even though the advisory Guidelines recommend 51-63 months of imprisonment.
This matter is now ripe for the Court's ruling.
When sentencing a defendant, the district court "must first calculate the Guidelines range, and then consider what sentence is appropriate for the individual defendant in light of the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)." Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350, 351 (2009); see also United States v. Panice, 598 F.3d 426, 441 (7th Cir. 2010) (); United States v. Bush, 523 F.3d 727, 729 (7th Cir. 2008) (). In imposing a sentence, § 3553(a) requires a court to consider:
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
After considering these factors, a court must impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to satisfy the purposes of sentencing: adequately capturing the seriousness of the offense, providing just punishment, promoting respect for the law,...
To continue reading
Request your trial