United States v. Karol McAtee
538 F. App’x 414 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Supreme Court's ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, the fact of a prior conviction used to increase the statutory maximum penalty for an offense does not need to be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, even when it elevates the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony.
Facts:
- Karol Ray McAtee rented a silver Chevrolet Malibu and was in possession of it for less than a day.
- McAtee drove the rental car to a border patrol checkpoint in Falfurrias, Texas, between midnight and 3:00 a.m.
- During a standard inspection, a drug-detection dog alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle.
- Upon searching the car, a border patrol agent found a small red plastic bag on the floor in front of the driver's seat, which was plainly visible.
- The bag contained 0.52 of a gram of a crystal-like substance, later confirmed to be methamphetamine.
- Agents also found a pipe in a case inside the vehicle's center console.
- McAtee informed an agent that no one else had access to or had driven the car since he rented it.
- The car contained numerous personal items belonging to McAtee, including duffle bags with clothing, pillows, blankets, and a hearing aid.
Procedural Posture:
- Karol Ray McAtee was charged by a superceding indictment in U.S. District Court with simple possession of methamphetamine.
- The Government filed an Information of Prior Convictions, asserting McAtee had two prior drug possession convictions, to seek an enhanced sentence.
- At trial, McAtee's attorney moved for a judgment of acquittal after the government presented its case, but the district court denied the motion.
- A jury found McAtee guilty of the possession charge.
- At a sentencing hearing, the district court held a hearing on the prior convictions, found the Government met its burden of proof, and sentenced McAtee to time served.
- McAtee (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of prior convictions, proven to a judge but not a jury, to elevate a simple possession misdemeanor to a felony under 21 U.S.C. § 844 violate the rule established in Apprendi v. New Jersey?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The enhancement of an offense from a misdemeanor to a felony based on prior convictions that are proven to a judge, rather than a jury, does not violate the rule from Apprendi v. New Jersey. The Supreme Court in Apprendi explicitly created an exception for 'the fact of a prior conviction' from its general rule that any fact increasing a penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury. This prior-conviction exception, established in Almendarez-Torres v. United States and reaffirmed in Apprendi, is unequivocal and applies even when the prior conviction transforms the classification of the current offense. As the defendant did not raise this constitutional objection at trial, the court reviewed for plain error and found none, as there was no clear or obvious error under existing circuit precedent.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the robust nature of the prior-conviction exception to the Apprendi rule within the Fifth Circuit. It clarifies that the exception applies not just to increasing the length of a sentence within a felony classification, but also to the more significant step of reclassifying an offense from a misdemeanor to a felony. By declining to create a distinction for misdemeanor-to-felony enhancements, the court reinforces the procedural separation between elements of a crime (for the jury) and recidivism-based sentencing factors (for the judge). This holding maintains a straightforward application of Supreme Court precedent and signals that future challenges on this specific ground are unlikely to succeed in this circuit without new guidance from the Supreme Court.
