Collins v. USA
Filing
11
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/30/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
7
Plaintiff/Respondent,
8
v.
9
BERNEST COLLINS,
10
Defendant/Petitioner.
Case Nos.
84-cr-00104-SI-1
97-cv-01854-SI
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR A REDUCTION OF
SENTENCE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 410, 411
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Before the Court is defendant Bernest Collins’s motion for a reduction of sentence. See
13
Dkts. 410, 411. Collins argues that it was unconstitutional for the original sentencing court to
14
sentence him to an 80-year term after he was convicted of one count of conspiracy and nine
15
separate counts of armed bank robbery. Dkt. 410 at 1, 5. He argues that the maximum statutory
16
sentence for armed bank robbery was 25 years, that 25 years is the total maximum sentence that
17
was permitted no matter how many separate counts he was convicted of, and that the district court
18
did not have the discretion to sentence him to consecutive rather than concurrent terms. See Dkt.
19
20
21
396. In particular, he argues that the rule of lenity requires this Court to substitute the word “all”
for the word “any” in 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d); Collins argues that this word change would mandate a
25-year maximum possible sentence.1 Dkt. 396 at 1-2; Dkt. 410 at 1, 5.
22
Collins raised a nearly identical argument in 1999 (Dkt. 352), when he argued that his
23
sentencing counsel failed to provide effective assistance because he failed to object to what
24
Collins called an “illegally imposed eighty year sentence.” More recently, in 2011 (Dkt. 396),
25
26
27
28
1
The relevant portion of the text of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) reads: “Whoever, in committing,
or in attempting to commit, any offense defined in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, assaults
any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device,
shall be fined . . . or imprisoned not more than twenty-five years, or both.”
1
Collins raised this same argument and further contended that his consecutive maximum statutory
2
80-year sentence, “although within statutory limitations, was . . . obvious[ly] unconstitutional.”
3
Dkt. 396-6. When this Court denied his 2011 motion on June 23, 2011 (Dkt. 400), Collins filed a
4
motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 23rd Order in 2012 (Dkt. 406), again making
5
nearly identical arguments. This Court denied Collins’s 2012 motion for reconsideration because
6
“Collins reiterate[d] arguments already made in the denied [2011] motion.” Dkt. 407-2. Now, the
7
Court denies the present motion for the same reasons that it denied the motion in 1999 and 2011.
8
See Dkts. 352, 400.
In 1962, the Ninth Circuit squarely held that a separate consecutive sentence may be
10
imposed for each offense unless precluded by the particular statute defining the substantive
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
offense; that the power to impose consecutive sentences is inherent in the sentencing court; and
12
that the bank robbery and conspiracy statutes under which Collins was convicted did not preclude
13
separate and consecutive sentences. See Hill v. United States, 306 F.2d 245, 247 (9th Cir. 1962).
14
This was the law when Collins was sentenced, and it continues to be the law.
15
Collins’s sentence was not unconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise an abuse of discretion:
16
nothing in the conspiracy and bank robbery statutes prevented the district court from sentencing
17
Collins to separate consecutive sentences, and none of the sentences imposed by the district court
18
exceeded the statutory limits for armed bank robbery and conspiracy.
19
ambiguous, and substituting the word “all” for the word “any” in 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) would not
20
change this result.
21
The statutes are not
Collins’s motion is therefore DENIED.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated: November 30, 2015
________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?