At page 219 Determining if crimes are related for sentencing purposes17 citing cases“concurrent sentences do not automatically create cases consolidated for sentencing.”
- United States v. Curtis Graves, 418 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2005).published We agree. “[C]oncurrent sentences do not automatically create cases consolidated for sentencing.” United States v. Sexton, 2 F.3d 218, 219 (7th Cir. 1993); see also Vallejo, 373 F.3d at 859 (finding sen- tences not consolidated when each c…
- United States v. Rosche, 239 F. Supp. 2d 858 (E.D. Wis. 2002).published“Crimes are not related for purposes of this provision simply because they have a similar modus .operandi,” United States v. Joy, 192 F.3d 761, 771 (7th Cir.1999) (citing United States v. Sexton, 2 F.3d 218, 219 (7th Cir.1993), and “[n]eit…
- United States v. Skelton, 25 F. App'x 443 (7th Cir. 2001).unpublishedSkelton argues that the two crimes must have been jointly planned because the two crimes were similar and were committed on the same day, but “ ‘[c]rimes are not related just because they have similar modus operand!, or because they were p…
- United States v. Dennis D. Best, 250 F.3d 1084 (7th Cir. 2001).published (holding that "concurrent sentences do not automatically create cases consolidated for sentencing.)
- United States v. Dennis Brown, 209 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 2000).published However, as we have previously and explicitly stated, “[cjrimes are not related just because they have similar modus oper-andi, or because they were part of a crime spree.” See United States v. Sexton, 2 F.3d 218, 219 (7th Cir.1993).
- United States v. Brian David Irons, 196 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 1999).publishedUnited States v. Sexton, 2 F.3d 218, 219 (7th Cir.1993); United States v. Woods, 976 F.2d 1096, 1099-1100 (7th Cir.1992).
- United States v. Vernon Joy, 192 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 1999).publishedUnited States v. Sexton, 2 F.3d 218, 219 (7th Cir.1993).
- United States v. Anthony R. Hughes, 134 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 1998).unpublishedStalbaum, 63 F.3d at 539 ; United States v. Sexton, 2 F.3d 218, 219 (7th Cir.1993).
- Breckenridge v. United States, 977 F. Supp. 766 (W.D. Va. 1997).published“[C]rimes are not related just because they ... were part of a crime spree”
- United States v. Richard Yahne, 64 F.3d 1091 (7th Cir. 1995).publishedMr. Yahne was required to show that the two “crimes were jointly planned or that the commission of one entailed the commission of another.” United States v. Sexton, 2 F.3d 218, 219 (7th Cir.1993) (per curiam).
Show 4 more citing cases
- United States v. Andre C. Joseph, 50 F.3d 401 (7th Cir. 1995).publishedThis is true even if he receives concurrent sentences, e.g., United States v. Sexton, 2 F.3d 218, 219 (7th Cir.1993) (per curiam); United States v. Klein, supra, 13 F.3d at 1185 ; United States v. Garcia, supra, 962 F.2d at 482-83 , since…
- United States v. Diaz, 51 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (D. Kan. 1999).published See United States v. Woods, 976 F.2d 1096, 1100 (7th Cir.1992). “[C]rimes are not related just because they have similar modus operandi, ..., or because they were part of a crime spree.” United States v. Sexton, 2 F.3d 218, 219 (7th Cir.19…
- United States v. Eddie Webb, Jr., 74 F.3d 1242 (7th Cir. 1996).unpublishedSee United States v. Sexton, 2 F.3d 218, 219 (7th Cir.1993).
- United States v. Lewellis Coleman, 38 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 1994).publishedSee also United States v. Sexton, 2 F.3d 218, 219 (7th Cir.1993). 2 .
v.
William L. SEXTON, Defendant-Appellant
William Sexton pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess cocaine with the intent to[*219] distribute it and to possessing a firearm in relation to a drug crime. Because Sexton previously had been convicted of four burglaries — three in Sangamon County and one in Logan County — the court sentenced him as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Sexton argues on appeal that the court erred by counting these four burglaries as separate offenses when it should have counted them as “related cases” as defined in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). The eases are related, argues Sexton, because he committed them with the same confederates, within a three-week time frame, using the same fence, at the same time of day, taking the same types of property from rural residences, using the same get-away ear, and with the same motive to make money. Sexton adds the alternative argument that because his sentence for the Logan County burglary ran concurrently with the sentences for the San-gamon County burglaries they should be deemed related cases.
Cases are “related” under the Guidelines “if they resulted from offenses that (1) occurred on the same occasion, (2) were part of a single common scheme or plan, or (3) were consolidated for trial or sentencing.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment, (n. 3). Sexton tries to fit his first argument into the second definition of related, “a single common scheme or plan.” The factors that Sexton points to indeed show that he committed like crimes that were close in time and similar in style. But crimes are not related just because they have similar modus operandi, U nited States v. Woods, 976 F.2d 1096, 1099 (7th Cir.1992), or because they were part of a crime spree. United States v. Ali, 951 F.2d 827, 828 (7th Cir.1992). Sexton must show that his crimes were jointly planned or that the commission of one entailed the commission of another. Woods, 976 F.2d at 1099. There is no evidence to satisfy that burden.
Sexton tries to fit his second argument into the third definition of related. The courts that have faced this argument have held that concurrent sentences do not automatically create cases consolidated for sentencing. United States v. Davis, 922 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097, 1101 (11th Cir.1990), see also United States v. Kinney, 915 F.2d 1471, 1472 (10th Cir.1990) (“a merely concurrent sentence of the same number of years given by a separate jurisdiction at a different date is not consolidated for sentencing”). We agree. Sexton’s cases were not consolidated for sentencing, and as we have stressed already, there is nothing further that would make these cases “related” in the sense meant by the Guidelines. See Woods, 976 F.2d at 1101-02 (discussing natural breadth of the definition of “related”).
AFFIRMED.