Appeals Court chastises NC’s Boyle in sentencing of armed robber

A federal Appeals Court accused a North Carolina judge of engaging in a “miscarriage of justice” Monday and threw out his 12-year prison sentence for a man convicted in a 2021 armed robbery in New Bern.

Judges Stephanie Thacker, James Wynn, and Henry Floyd of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously endorsed the decision chastising US District Judge Terrence Boyle.

Former President Barack Obama appointed all three appellate judges. Former President Ronald Reagan appointed Boyle, who has served as a federal judge in North Carolina since 1984.

The appellate judges’ criticism of Boyle stemmed from his handling of sentencing for Quamaine Donell “Animal” Smith.

With an accomplice, Smith robbed a New Bern gas station in May 2021, according to the 4th Circuit opinion. “Appellant entered the store armed with a revolver,” Thacker wrote. “He approached the counter, pointed the revolver at the cashier, and demanded money. Appellant then ran behind the counter, struck the cashier on the head with the revolver, and took cartons of cigarettes as well as money from the register.”

As part of a plea deal, Smith agreed to waive his right to appeal. Appellate judges noted that Smith’s February 2022 plea hearing lasted just 16 minutes. His May 2022 sentencing hearing lasted 13 minutes.

Smith’s lawyers argued for a sentence of eight to 10 years, but Boyle set a sentence of 12 years. Federal sentencing guidelines would have permitted a sentence of almost 13 years.

The 4th Circuit judges focused on Smith’s waiver of his right to appeal his sentence.

“It is clear from the record that the district court here failed to properly advise and question Appellant,” Thacker wrote. “The court did not explain what the appeal waiver meant or explain that exceptions existed to the waiver of Appellant’s rights (i.e., ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, sentences in excess of the Guidelines range, or constitutional error). Worse still, the court misstated the terms of the appeal waiver by informing Appellant that he waived only his right to appeal his conviction — as opposed to his right to appeal his conviction and sentence.”

“Today, we make clear that the proper remedy for an invalid appeal waiver is to sever the appeal waiver from the remainder of the plea agreement and relieve the defendant of the waiver,” Thacker added.

The 4th Circuit devoted nearly six pages of its 31-page ruling to the topic of “miscarriage of justice.”

“Even if this appeal waiver were valid, … we would still refuse to enforce it,” Thacker wrote. “Namely, because this district court’s practice of omitting necessary information in both plea and sentencing hearings, disregarding proper procedure, and relying on appeal waivers to shield procedurally unreasonable sentences from review constitutes a miscarriage of justice warranting our consideration of the merits of the appeal, regardless of the validity of the appeal waiver.”

“The regular practice of the district court below to omit necessary information and disregard required procedure in both plea and sentencing hearings, knowing that it is generally shielded by an appeal waiver, cannot stand,” the Appeals Court opinion added.

“This district court has also repeatedly and, with increasing frequency, disregarded our precedent regarding procedurally reasonable sentencing hearings,” Thacker wrote.

“Unfortunately, we have reversed the court below with increasing frequency to no avail,” she added. “Heretofore, the district court’s omissions, failures, and disregard for our precedent have been effectively shielded from review by appeal waivers in cases such as the one at hand. No more.”

“We hold that this particular district court’s practice of frequent and repeated disregard for a defendant’s right to necessary information during plea colloquies and indifference to proper procedure during sentencing hearings — which stems from the court’s knowledge that its conduct would be effectively shielded by an appeal waiver — is a miscarriage of justice that cannot remain unaddressed,” appellate judges explained.

“In this case, without explanation, the district judge decided 12 years of Appellant’s life in 13 minutes. The Government rightfully acknowledges that this was procedurally unreasonable. Because it was,” Thacker wrote.

“Finally, in light of the district court’s disregard for procedure and our precedent, we conclude that this case should be reassigned to a different judge on remand to preserve the appearance of integrity,” the 4th Circuit added.

Smith’s case will head to a different trial judge for resentencing.