United States v. Denard Darnell Neal

The issue in this case is whether multiple convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c) arising from the same indictment require the statute’s enhanced penalties for repeat offenders. We find that the statute by its plain language requires the enhanced penalties.

I

A grand jury indicted Denard Darnell Neal on three counts of bank robbery and three counts of using a firearm in a crime *602 of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c). The indictment charged that Neal robbed a bank in Phoenix, Arizona, on November 10, 1989, a second bank in Tucson, Arizona, on November 29, 1989, and a third bank in Yuma, Arizona, on December 7, 1989. The indictment charged that Neal used a firearm in connection with all three robberies.

A jury found Neal guilty on all counts. The district judge sentenced Neal to 125 months on each of the three bank robbery counts with those sentences to be served concurrently. On the firearms counts, the judge sentenced Neal to five years on the first count, twenty years on the second count, and twenty years on the third count, with those sentences to be served consecutively to each other and to the bank robbery sentence.

Neal’s total sentence is 55 years and five…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c), a statute making it an independent offense to commit a crime of violence using a firearm, is Congress’ attempt to discourage use of firearms. Upon a first conviction, an offender receives a mandatory five year term. Upon a “second or subsequent conviction,” the defendant receives a mandatory twenty-year sentence. Because a criminal with a firearm poses the same threat to the public on first and subsequent offenses, the differential sentences must have been designed to create a differential effect on the offender. The initial five-year sentence is intended to punish and reform the first-time offender, while the subsequent twenty-year sentence punishes more severely those who failed to learn their lessons from the initial punishment. Where the primary purposes of subsequent offender legislation are reformation and retribution, “such ends would be served best by applying the statutes only to those offenders who have been convicted prior to the commission of the subsequent offense.” Gonzales v. United States, 224 F.2d 431, 434 (1st Cir.1955).

A common-sense reading of § 924(c) is consonant with that intent. Congress created an…

976 F.2d 601 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Denard Darnell NEAL, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-10078. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 14, 1992. Decided Oct. 5, 1992. Carmen L. Fischer, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellant. W. Allen Stooks, Asst. U.S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before: GOODWIN, FLETCHER, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. BRUNETTI, Circuit Judge: 1 The issue in this case is whether multiple convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c) arising from the same indictment require the statute's enhanced penalties for repeat offenders. We find that the statute by its plain language requires the enhanced penalties. 2 * A grand jury indicted Denard Darnell Neal on three counts of bank robbery and three counts of using a firearm in a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c). The indictment charged that Neal robbed a bank in Phoenix, Arizona, on November 10, 1989, a second bank in Tucson, Arizona, on November 29, 1989, and a third bank in Yuma, Arizona, on December 7, 1989. The indictment charged that Neal used a…