By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 18, 2011//
United States Court of Appeals
Criminal Opinion
Criminal – sentencing — minimum sentences
Where the sentencing court imposed a fine, mistakenly believing it was a mandatory minimum, the fine must be vacated.
“On a correct understanding of the law, Brown’s inability to pay permitted the district court to not impose a fine at all. Yet, the Statement of Reasons indicates that the district court erroneously believed that the $300 fines were mandatory minimums. This mistake of law implicated Brown’s substantial rights because it dictated the outcome of his sentencing—the district court viewed itself as obligated to impose the fines. See McMath, 559 F.3d at 663 n.2 (noting that mistakes of law typically satisfy plain error and merit reversal); United States v. Flores-Sandoval, 94 F.3d 346, 351 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that, in the context of imposing fines, an error prejudices the defendant’s substantial rights if it likely would have affected the amount of the fine). We may remand to correct this mistake. Cf. United States v. Jumah, 599 F.3d 799, 813 (7th Cir. 2010) (finding that plain error exists and remand is proper when a sentence is based on a miscalculation of the guidelines range); Garrett, 528 F.3d at 529-30 (same); United States v. Ortiz, 613 F.3d 550, 554 (5th Cir. 2010) (remanding for resentencing when a district court imposed a sentence that it believed was a mandatory minimum, but which exceeded the actual mandatory minimum for the offense).”
Affirmed in part, and Vacated in part.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Murphy, J., Flaum, J.