00-2900 U.S. v. Martinez

Listen to this article

“Martinez first argues that the sentences imposed by the district court are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi holds that factual findings (other than prior convictions) that raise a defendant’s sentence above the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 476. Martinez admitted to selling approximately 90 kilograms of marijuana, yielding a statutory maximum of 20 years on both counts, see 21 U.S.C. sec. 841(b)(1)(C). The court, however, sentenced him to 292 months for the conspiracy count, 52 months beyond the statutory maximum.

“The district court’s error did not seriously affect the fairness of the proceeding because the court could have imposed the same punishment simply by imposing consecutive sentences. See U.S.S.G. sec. 5G1.2(d) (instructing courts to impose consecutive sentences to achieve the total punishment appropriate to the convictions).

As a result, the court’s error did not result in a miscarriage of justice that warrants reversal.”

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Foreman, J., Rovner, J.