Summary
The Supreme Court held that the concurrent sentence doctrine did not apply because monetary assessments imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3013 made the petitioner's sentences nonconcurrent in their legal consequences. The Court vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded for consideration of the petitioner's challenge to his second possession conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the concurrent sentence doctrine permitted the Fifth Circuit to decline review of a conviction when the defendant was subject to separate monetary assessments on each count.
Holdings
- The concurrent sentence doctrine did not justify declining review of the second possession conviction because the separate monetary assessments made the sentences nonconcurrent.
Key quotations
“Since petitioner's liability to pay this total depends on the validity of each of his three convictions, the sentences are not concurrent.” (737)
Factual background
Petitioner was convicted of conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and of two counts of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. Although the District Court imposed concurrent seven-year prison terms and concurrent five-year special parole terms on the possession counts, it also imposed a $50 assessment on each of the three convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 3013.
Procedural history
Ray was convicted in the District Court of one conspiracy count and two possession counts and received concurrent prison and special parole terms. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conspiracy conviction and one possession conviction but declined to review the second possession conviction under the concurrent sentence doctrine. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the appellate judgment, and remanded for review of the second possession conviction because monetary assessments imposed on each count made the sentences nonconcurrent.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the Fifth Circuit to consider Ray's challenge to his second possession conviction.