By: Derek Hawkins//February 15, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: United States of America v. Armel Richardson
Case No: 15-1403
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and POSNER, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Length of sentence
Appellant “career offender” properly sentenced by the court
“What is true is that “a sentencing court may not consider police reports to determine whether a prior conviction meets the definition of a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense for purposes of classifying a defendant as a career offender.” United States v. Durham, 645 F.3d 883, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), summarizing Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005). But that was not what the district judge did. The classification of the defendant as a career offender is not contested. The only issue is whether a sentencing judge can allow his exercise of sentencing discretion to be influenced by a summary of police reports in the presentence report prepared by the Probation Service. He can. Judges routinely rely on information found in such reports, even though much of that information is hearsay. The rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing, and so the sentencing judge is free to consider hearsay found in presentence reports provided that “it is well supported and appears reliable.” United States v. Heckel, 570 F.3d 791, 795 (7th Cir. 2009). The only hearsay in the presentence report relating to the defendant’s 2001 and 2005 offenses was the amount of drugs plus a statement that he’d been found with a digital scale containing crack cocaine residue, along with $7,515 in cash, when he was arrested in 2005—his convictions and sentences were matters of public record, and the sentences of 27 months for the 3-gram offense and 98 months for the 25-gram offense were consistent with the drug amounts; and as the defendant presented no evidence that the police reports were inaccurate in any respect relevant to this case, the judge was not required to disregard those amounts.”
Affirmed