United States v. Pete, No. 14-10370 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, 16 years old at the time of the offenses, was convicted of felony murder and related charges resulting in a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole. Miller v. Alabama subsequently held unconstitutional for juvenile offenders mandatory terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The district court refused to appoint a neuropsychological expert under 18 U.S.C. 3006A(e) on resentencing. The court concluded that, under these circumstances, a reasonably competent attorney would have found the services of the requested expert necessary to provide adequate representation at defendant’s resentencing. By precluding defendant from developing this potential mitigating evidence, the district court abused its discretion. The court also concluded that a reasonable attorney would have considered an up-to-date neuropsychological evaluation necessary had defendant been a nonindigent defendant. And because a current evaluation could have provided mitigating evidence in support of a lesser sentence, defendant was sufficiently prejudiced by the failure to appoint a psychological expert before resentencing. Therefore, the court vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. The court further concluded that defendant has not shown the district court erred by calculating the Guidelines’ recommended base offense level as 43; defendant has not demonstrated that the district court committed prejudicial error when it considered the PSR’s calculation of criminal history points attributed to his juvenile offenses; and, even assuming that defendant’s objection to the district court’s calculation of his criminal history category based on his juvenile offenses was forfeited, as opposed to waived, and assuming the district court committed plain error by attributing criminal history points to three of his juvenile offenses, defendant has not shown prejudice as a result of the error.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated a sentence, which the district court imposed on resentencing in light of Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), and remanded for appointment of a neuropsychological expert and for resentencing after considering any expert evidence offered. The defendant was 16 years old when, in 2002, he committed a crime that resulted in a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole. Following Miller, which held unconstitutional for juvenile offenders mandatory terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the district court resentenced the defendant to 708 months. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the indigent-defendant’s motion for appointment of a neuropsychological expert under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e) to help develop mitigating evidence at resentencing, where (1) a reasonable attorney would have considered an up-to- date neuropsychological evaluation necessary had the defendant been a nonindigent defendant; and (2) the defendant was prejudiced because a current evaluation could have provided mitigating evidence in support of a lesser sentence. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that in light of 28 U.S.C. § 994(b)(1), which delegates authority to the UNITED STATES V. PETE 3 Sentencing Commission to develop sentencing “ranges,” the Commission lacked authority to enact base offense level 43, which provides no sentencing “range.” The panel explained that at least where, as in 18 U.S.C. § 1111, a single sentence is compelled by statute, a sentencing “range” is properly limited to that sentence. The panel concluded that the district court did not commit prejudicial error when it considered the presentence report’s calculation of criminal history points attributable to the defendant’s juvenile offenses.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.