Opinion
NO. 2:15CR90-PPS
11-21-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DAMIANE HARRIS, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
On October 4, 2016, I sentenced Damiane Harris to 24 months' imprisonment on the charge of interstate transportation of stolen property, which he had pled guilty to on July 5, 2016. [DE 33, 21.] Harris did not appeal the sentence, and has not previously challenged it in any way, but now has filed a motion asking me to amend the judgment nunc pro tunc to provide that the prison term should run concurrent with sentences later imposed in other cases that were pending against Harris at that time. [DE 36.]
Despite Harris's suggestion that an agreement to concurrent sentences was part of the "plea deal" in this case [DE 36 at 2], the parties' plea agreement [DE 19] makes no reference to concurrent sentences. And contrary to Harris's assertions about what took place at the sentencing hearing [DE 36 at 2], there was no agreement by the government on the record to concurrent sentencing. Even more significantly, I reject Harris's contention that during the sentencing hearing I "acknowledged and stated in open court that the (24) twenty four month sentence would be ran concurrent with any other pending case...." [DE 36 at 2.] The transcript of the sentencing hearing indicates that defense counsel made a request that I impose the sentence in this case to run concurrent to any sentences yet to be imposed in two then-pending Illinois cases. [DE 37 at 19.] But I clearly stated on the record that I declined to make Harris's federal sentence concurrent, explaining that I would leave that determination up to the Illinois judge who might impose a sentence on Harris in the future. [DE 37 at 34-35.]
ACCORDINGLY:
Damiane Harris's Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Amendment [DE 36] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: November 21, 2019.
/s/ Philip P. Simon
PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT