AMENDMENT 75
Section 1B1.2(a) is amended by deleting the last sentence as follows
"Similarly, stipulations to additional offenses are treated as if the defendant had been convicted of separate counts charging those offenses.",
and by inserting the following additional subsections:
"(c) A conviction by a plea of guilty or nolo contendere containing a stipulation that specifically establishes the commission of additional offense(s) shall be treated as if the defendant had been convicted of additional count(s) charging those offense(s).(d) A conviction on a count charging a conspiracy to commit more than one offense shall be treated as if the defendant had been convicted on a separate count of conspiracy for each offense that the defendant conspired to commit.".
The Commentary to §1B1.2 captioned "Application Notes" is amended in the second paragraph of Note 1 by deleting:
"Similarly, if the defendant pleads guilty to one robbery but admits the elements of two additional robberies as part of a plea agreement, the guideline applicable to three robberies is to be applied.",
and by inserting the following additional notes:
"4. Subsections (c) and (d) address circumstances in which the provisions of Chapter Three, Part D (Multiple Counts) are to be applied although there may be only one count of conviction. Subsection (c) provides that in the case of a stipulation to the commission of additional offense(s), the guidelines are to be applied as if the defendant had been convicted of an additional count for each of the offenses stipulated. For example, if the defendant is convicted of one count of robbery but, as part of a plea agreement, admits to having committed two additional robberies, the guidelines are to be applied as if the defendant had been convicted of three counts of robbery. Subsection (d) provides that a conviction on a conspiracy count charging conspiracy to commit more than one offense is treated as if the defendant had been convicted of a separate conspiracy count for each offense that he conspired to commit. For example, where a conviction on a single count of conspiracy establishes that the defendant conspired to commit three robberies, the guidelines are to be applied as if the defendant had been convicted on one count of conspiracy to commit the first robbery, one count of conspiracy to commit the second robbery, and one count of conspiracy to commit the third robbery.
5. Particular care must be taken in applying subsection (d) because there are cases in which the jury’s verdict does not establish which offense(s) was the object of the conspiracy. In such cases, subsection (d) should only be applied with respect to an object offense alleged in the conspiracy count if the court, were it sitting as a trier of fact, would convict the defendant of conspiring to commit that object offense. Note, however, if the object offenses specified in the conspiracy count would be grouped together under §3D1.2(d) (e.g., a conspiracy to steal three government checks) it is not necessary to engage in the foregoing analysis, because §1B1.3(a)(2) governs consideration of the defendant’s conduct.".
Reason for Amendment: The purpose of this amendment is to add a guideline subsection (subsection (d)) expressly providing that a conviction of conspiracy to commit more than one offense is treated for guideline purposes as if the defendant had been convicted of a separate conspiracy count for each offense that the defendant conspired to commit. The current instruction in Application Note 9 of §3D1.2 is inadequate. For consistency, material now contained at §1B1.2(a) concerning stipulations to having committed additional offenses is moved to a new subsection (subsection (c)).
Additional commentary (Application Note 5) is provided to address cases in which the jury’s verdict does not specify how many or which offenses were the object of the conspiracy of which the defendant was convicted. Compare United States v. Johnson, 713 F.2d 633, 645-46 (11th Cir. 1983) (conviction stands if there is sufficient proof with respect to any one of the objectives) cert. denied sub nom. Wilkins v. United States, 465 U.S. 1081 (1984) with United States v. Tarnopol, 561 F.2d 466 (3d Cir. 1977) (failure of proof with respect to any one of the objectives renders the conspiracy conviction invalid). In order to maintain consistency with other §1B1.2(a) determinations, this decision should be governed by a reasonable doubt standard. A higher standard of proof should govern the creation of what is, in effect, a new count of conviction for the purposes of Chapter Three, Part D (Multiple Counts). Because the guidelines do not explicitly establish standards of proof, the proposed new application note calls upon the court to determine which offense(s) was the object of the conspiracy as if it were "sitting as a trier of fact." The foregoing determination is not required, however, in the case of offenses that are grouped together under §3D1.2(d) (e.g., fraud and theft) because §1B1.3(a)(2) governs consideration of the defendant’s conduct.
Effective Date: The effective date of this amendment is November 1, 1989.