Summary
The Ninth Circuit certified a question of California law to the California Supreme Court in consolidated appeals involving career-offender sentencing enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The question is whether possession of a listed controlled substance under California Health and Safety Code § 11378 may be proven by possession of either the actual substance or an analog, without jury unanimity as to which. The Ninth Circuit stayed proceedings and administratively closed the appeals pending the California Supreme Court's response.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether prior convictions under California Health & Safety Code § 11378 qualify as controlled-substance offenses under U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2.
- Under California law, whether possession of a controlled-substance analog is an alternative means of proving possession of the listed controlled substance or an alternative element defining a separate crime.
- Whether the Ninth Circuit should certify that unresolved dispositive California-law question to the California Supreme Court under California Rule of Court 8.548.
Holdings
- The Ninth Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court the question whether, for a charge under California Health & Safety Code § 11378 involving a listed controlled substance, the state must prove and the jury must unanimously agree that the defendant possessed the actual listed substance rather than an analog, or whether either may support conviction without unanimity as to which.
- The submission of the appeals for decision was vacated and deferred, the docket was administratively closed, and proceedings were stayed pending the California Supreme Court's acceptance or rejection of certification and, if accepted, its decision.
Key quotations
“We therefore respectfully ask for guidance from the California Supreme Court.” (at 18)
“Submission of this appeal for decision is vacated and deferred pending the California Supreme Court’s final response to this certification order.” (at 20)
“QUESTION CERTIFIED; PROCEEDINGS STAYED.” (at 20)
Factual background
Soto and Reid each pleaded guilty to federal drug-trafficking offenses and were sentenced after the district courts applied the U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 career-offender enhancement. The enhancement relied on each defendant's prior California convictions for possession for sale of methamphetamine or amphetamine under California Health & Safety Code § 11378. The parties disputed whether those prior convictions categorically qualify as federal controlled-substance offenses because California law may permit conviction based on possession of either the listed substance or an analog of that substance.
Procedural history
Soto pleaded guilty to federal drug-trafficking charges and received a 180-month sentence after the district court applied the career-offender enhancement based on two prior § 11378 convictions. Reid pleaded guilty to six federal drug charges under a conditional plea agreement and received a 188-month sentence after the same enhancement was applied based on two prior § 11378 convictions. Both defendants challenged the enhancement on appeal. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the appeals turned on an unresolved question of California law concerning whether possession of a controlled-substance analog is an alternative means or a separate element under § 11378, certified that question to the California Supreme Court, and stayed the proceedings.