04-3720 U.S. v. Graves

Listen to this article

“The district court noted that although the sentences were concurrent and there was a reference in one plea agreement to the other, those facts alone did not support a finding that the sentences were consolidated. We agree. ‘[C]oncurrent sentences do not automatically create cases consolidated for sentencing.’ United States v. Sexton, 2 F.3d 218, 219 (7th Cir. 1993); see also Vallejo, 373 F.3d at 859 (finding sentences not consolidated when each case had a different docket number, the judge referred to the cases as separate, and sentencing orders were entered separately); Best, 250 F.3d at 1095 (affirming district court’s decision on consolidation when the sentencing court retained separate docket numbers, entered separate judgments and sentences, and the crimes occurred one month apart and were not logically related). The facts supporting a finding that the sentences were not consolidated are even stronger here than they were in Vallejo and Best; Graves committed two aggravated batteries nine months apart, the cases were prosecuted as separate crimes, there were two separate plea agreements, and the sentencings took place on different days in front of different judges. We cannot say that the district court erred in finding that Graves’s two prior felonies were not ‘related’; thus, sentencing him as a career offender was proper.”

Affirmed and Remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Hamilton, J., Kanne, J.