From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Johnson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Jul 16, 2013
536 F. App'x 415 (5th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 12-10690

07-16-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. MICHELLE JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant


Summary Calendar


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-7-3

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Pursuant to her guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to steal Government property (cashing stolen IRS refund checks totaling approximately $114,000), Michelle Johnson received an above-Guidelines sentence of 60 months' imprisonment. She contends her sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because it is purposeless and grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of her crime of conviction, in violation of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. Const. amend. VIII.

Ordinarily, constitutional claims are reviewed de novo. E.g., United States v. Romero-Cruz, 201 F.3d 374, 377 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Johnson did not raise an Eighth Amendment objection in district court to her sentence, however, review is only for plain error. E.g., United States v. Helm, 502 F.3d 366, 367 (5th Cir. 2007). For reversible plain error, Johnson must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious, and that affected her substantial rights. E.g., Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). She fails to do so.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits a sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime for which it is imposed. Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 288-90 (1983). When evaluating an Eighth Amendment proportionality challenge, the first step is to make a threshold comparison between the gravity of the charged offense and the severity of the sentence; if this comparison does not show the sentence is disproportionate, our analysis ends. E.g., McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316-17 (5th Cir. 1992). Our court looks to Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), as a benchmark. See McGruder, 954 F.2d at 317.

Johnson's 60-month prison sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the severity of her conspiracy offense when measured against the benchmark in Rummel, 445 U.S. at 284-85 (affirming life imprisonment for defendant convicted of obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses and sentenced under state "recidivist statute"). Accordingly, Johnson has not demonstrated the requisite clear or obvious error. See United States v. Helm, 502 F.3d at 368-69.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

United States v. Johnson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Jul 16, 2013
536 F. App'x 415 (5th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. MICHELLE JOHNSON…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jul 16, 2013

Citations

536 F. App'x 415 (5th Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

United States v. Johnson

Movant appealed, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction and sentence. UnitedStates v.…