Summary
The Third Circuit reviewed appeals by James Perrin and Price Montgomery regarding their convictions for drug trafficking, firearm offenses, and witness tampering. The central issue was whether a Pennsylvania Attorney General's verbal authorization and delegation to a deputy to sign a wiretap application violated Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which would require suppression of the intercepted evidence. The court held that Title III defers to state law regarding delegation authority and found substantial compliance with statutory requirements, affirming most convictions while vacating and remanding one firearm-related sentence for resentencing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the wiretap application signed by First Deputy King complied with Title III’s requirement that a state’s principal prosecuting attorney authorize the application.
- Whether the district court’s constructive amendment of Count 5 violated the defendants’ rights.
- Whether Montgomery’s life sentence for witness‑tampering violated the Apprendi and Alleyne doctrines.
- Whether Montgomery’s ineffective‑assistance claim regarding the accomplice‑liability instruction is reviewable.
- Whether the mandatory consecutive sentence imposed for a § 924(j) conviction was erroneous under Lora v. United States.
Holdings
- The delegation of authority to a deputy is permissible where state law allows it; the defendants did not demonstrate a plain error in the wiretap authorization.
- The constructive amendment claim fails because the error was not plain and did not seriously affect the fairness of the proceedings.
- The life sentence does not violate Apprendi or Alleyne because the jury found the elements of murder, which is the statutory maximum, and the sentencing was therefore proper.
- The claim is not reviewable on direct appeal because the invited‑error doctrine bars it; the court will deny the claim without prejudice.
- The mandatory consecutive term was erroneous; the court vacates that portion of the sentence and remands for resentencing consistent with Lora.
Key quotations
“We therefore decline Perrin’s invitation to hold that AG Kane violated Title III by not “personally reviewing” the wiretap application after she delegated her authority to submit the application.” (at 52.3)
“The plain language of subsection 2516(2) does not prescribe what role a principal prosecuting attorney should play after delegating their authority.” (at 57)
Factual background
Montgomery and Perrin operated a heroin‑trafficking enterprise that generated hundreds of thousands of dollars. A series of wiretaps, authorized by Pennsylvania officials, captured communications linking the defendants to the drug operation and to the murder of witness Tina Crawford. The defendants were arrested in June 2014, searched, and later convicted on drug, firearm, and witness‑tampering charges.
Procedural history
The district court denied the appellants' joint motion to suppress evidence obtained from a wiretap authorized by a Pennsylvania Attorney General's deputy, finding that Pennsylvania law permitted the delegation. The district court also sentenced the defendants on multiple drug, firearm, and witness‑tampering counts. The appellants appealed on several grounds including alleged Title III violations, constructive amendment of a firearms count, sentencing errors, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Remand instructions
Vacate Montgomery’s § 924(j) consecutive term and remand for resentencing consistent with Lora v. United States.