Background
Defendant D’Angelo Threatt pleaded guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm. During sentencing, defense counsel stated he and the defendant had reviewed the presentence investigation report. However, during allocution, the defendant stated his attorney never went over the report with him. The district court ignored this claim and sentenced the defendant to the statutory maximum of fifteen years.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A) requires district courts to verify that a defendant and attorney have read and discussed the presentence investigation report. When a defendant expressly says otherwise, the court must follow up on that assertion. The court determined the defendant preserved the issue for appeal by raising it during allocution, applying harmless error review rather than plain error review. The court found the error was not harmless because the defendant claimed factual inaccuracies in the report that would have affected his sentence.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A) requires district courts to “verify” that a defendant and his attorney have read and discussed the presentence investigation report (“PSR”).
What it means going forward
The defendant’s sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing with proper verification of the presentence investigation report.