United States v. Cotton

535 U.S. 625 (2002)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Hall, (D) led a 'vast drug organization' in Baltimore. Six other Ds helped run the operation. A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Ds with conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base. A superseding indictment extended the time period of the conspiracy and added five more defendants, charged a conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute a 'detectable amount' of cocaine and cocaine base. The superseding indictment did not allege any of the threshold levels of drug quantity that lead to enhanced penalties under §841(b). In accord with the superseding indictment, the District Court instructed the jury that 'as long as you find that a D conspired to distribute or possess with intent to distribute these controlled substances, the amounts involved are not important.' D were found guilty. Congress established 'a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years' for drug offenses involving a detectable quantity of cocaine or cocaine base. §841(b)(1)(C). The District Court made a finding of drug quantity that implicated the enhanced penalties of §841(b)(1)(A), which prescribes 'a term of imprisonment which may not be . . . more than life' for drug offenses involving at least 50 grams of cocaine base. The court sentenced two of the Ds to 30 years' imprisonment and the other Ds to life imprisonment. Ds did not object in the District Court to the fact that these sentences were based on an amount of drug quantity not alleged in the indictment. While their appeal was pending, the Supreme Court then decided Apprendi v. New Jersey. Ds argued in the Court of Appeals that their sentences were invalid under Apprendi, because the issue of drug quantity was neither alleged in the indictment nor submitted to the petit jury. A divided court vacated the sentences on the ground that 'because an indictment setting forth all the essential elements of an offense is both mandatory and jurisdictional, . . . a court is without jurisdiction to ... impose a sentence for an offense not charged in the indictment.'