0#r#"[}IA : OT'COLUMBIA ' ,!N 'or, ,f;1, Criminal No.: 2012 CFl006370."i 4 : Judge: The Houoreble , Sentenclng DateI Scptember SIJPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT cRTMTNALDTVTSION-FELONYBRANCIT IINITf,I) STATES OF AMERICA v. KEYON CAil,DWELL : , , , \.'$ tt'? '' +t? r' Thomrs.l. f*fohfJ 2l' 2012 -;i{.' 11, S l GOVEBIYMENT'S MEMORAI\IIUM IN Arr! OF SENTENCIN$ ij The United States, by and through its attomey, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, hereby submits this memorandum in aid of sontencing. For dre reasons set forth herein, the govemment respectfully recommends thatthe Court imposEURa sentencetotaling 204 months of incarceration. In support of this recomrnendation, the govEURrnment submits the follouring points and authorities, and any others which may be cited at a hearing on this matter. I. Brqksround The evidence that the deftndant acknowledged at the Rule l l hearing established that at approximately 8:02 p.m. on Wednesday, April I 1,2012, units from the Fifth District ofthe Washington, DC Meuopolitan Police Department were dispatched to 662 24th Street NE, Washington, DC, to investigate the sounds of gunshots. Officers arrived on the scene and located the decedent, Draynell Henderson, laying in the hallway of 662 24th Street NE, dircctly outside of Apartment #32. The decedent was unconscious, unresponsive and suffering from multiple gunshot wounds to the body. DCFEMS transported the Mr, Henderson to Washington HospiUl Center where he was pronounced dead. Later that same evening an eye witness was interviewed by MPD detectives and it was leamed that the witness was inside of Apartrncnt #32 with the defendant, Keyon Caldwell, The witness lived at that apartment with tho defendant, and has known the defondant for many years. The witness saw the Draynell Henderson, also knoun to the witness, come into the apartment ariil say to the defendant "I got something good for us.,' fuIr. Henderson and the defendant then left the apartment. When the witness obsen'ed this intersction betwecn the defendant and Mr, Hendersoq the witn*s understood that the two were intcnding to leave to smoke PCP together. Approximatoly 15 minutes later, while inside of a bedroom in the apartment, the witness heard locked the several gunshots that sounded like they were coming from inside of the apartment. The witness bedroom door and began yetling for help. After about saw thc dEURfendant laying on the I minute, the witness came into the living room and floor in the doorway ofthe apartnent, holding defendant was pointing the gun et a pistol in his rigbt hand. The Mr. Henderson. The front door of the apartnent was open and Mr. Henderson was laying in the hallway of the building bleeding and gasping for approximately 5 air. Mr. Henderson was ftet from where the defcndant was laying on the floor holding the gun. The witness observed that the defendant appeared to be under the influence ofPCP. Thewitness attempted to prythe gun fr,omthedefendant'shand, while sayingto thedefendant"give me the gun." While attempting to pry the gun from the defendant's hand, the witness also called 91 witness was able to pry the gun from the defendant's hand, took the gun and placed it in the drawer of 1. The a chest of drawers in the bedroom. The witness quickly returned to the living room to find the door to the apartment closed, and the defendant inside of the apartment. The witness rcmained on the 911 call until the witress heard MPD oflicers in the hallway of thEUR building. The witness then screamed for help. The witness recognized the handgun that the defendant was holding, and had seen the same gun on the defendant's person 2 days prior to the shooting. The witness also knew the defendant to carry frat handgun regularly. OfficerJefferyScharfand his partner, OfficerAlexis Salulich, arrivedonthe sceneat662 24th Street NE, and found the decedent Iaying in the hallway face down in a puddlc of blood. Officcr Scharf heard r witness screaming inside ofApartment #32 that the witness had the shooter and weapon inside. The offioers entered the apartment and found the defendant on the floor motionless. The defendant also appeared to the officers to bo urrder the influence ofPCP. A search warant was obtainedfar 662241h Street, NE, Apartment #32. The handgun and other items ofevidencewere recovered. The handgun, a Rugerg mm semi-automatic pistol, had a fifteen round magazine in chamber it. The magazine contained 9 rounds and one round was in the of the handgun. The handgun had the harnmer cocked to the rcar. During the course of thc investigation, five spent casings werc found in the apartment around the door, and in the hallway near the door to the apartment The spent casings werc of thc same calibor and brand found in the recovered handgun. On April 30,2Ll2,the defendant entered a plea, pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford. 400 U.S. 25 (19?0), to one count of Voluntary Manslaughter While Armed with an opcrable pistol, based upon the foregoing facts. The plea was also entered purcrrant to Rule I l(eXlXC) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, whereby the government agreed to advocate for a guideline cornpliant sentence. II' Sentencing Factorc It is well-established that in determining thc appropriate sentence for the defeirdant, fie Court may take into consideration any factor other than race, gender, marital status, ethnic origin, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation. See. D.C. Sentencing Guidelines Practice Manual at $ 3.2. It is appropriatc for the Court to take into consideration the nature and ciroumstances ofthc defendant's offEURnse, his criminal history and backgroun4 and the public's interest in punishment, detemence and rehabilitation. As discussed, each of the factors below support thc government's recommendation that the defendant should be sentensed to an appropriate period A. of incarceration for his offensq in this case, to 204 months' imprisonmcnt. Nature rnd Circumstances of thc Iritsnt Offense The naturc snd circumstances ofthe defendant's offense is horrifically violent. The defendant shot his friend, Mr. Henderson, a numbEURr of times, killing him, while in a PCP induoed stupor. The dcfendant voluntarily ingested that horrible drug, causing him to loose touch with rcality, while armed with a pistol. Thc defendant committed this grievous crime in the hallway immediately outside ofhis own home. In doing so, the defendant ilot only gunned down Mr, Henderson, but also endangered others, including his olvn young children, who were in the apartment The defendant's conduct was utterly outrageous and senscless. The Court would be hard pre ssed to imagine a morc senseless taking of life, or a more horrific endangerment ofothers. ByingestingPCP,thedefendantvoluntarilybecamcaorazedandextraordinarilydangerousarmed villain, Not only was the defendant's conduct on April 11, 2012 utterly outrageous, honibly violent extraordinarily dangerous, but it was also wholly foreseeable thst B. fte life of another would and be taken. The Defendant's Crlmlnelity end Background As an initial rnatter, the government takes issue with the calculation made by thc Presbntence Report writer regarding the defendant's crirninal history score. Specifically, in the "Prior Criminal Record" section ofthePSR" the writer mistakenly characterizes the defendant's conviction incase number 1996-FEL-003557 as "Attempt to Commit Sex Offense/Gun Count 6," designates the disposition date as"712787" and scores the offense as &n Report, p. 8. "M5" offense, adding 3 points to the defendant's criminal history score. Scq Prcscntence This mistake causes the PSR writer to incorrectly inflate the defendant's overall oriminal history score to 6.00, placing the defendant in "Colurnn E ' on the Master Grid of the Sentencing Guidelincs. This miscalculation places the defendant's guideline range as I38 months to life in prison. With rcgardto co,se fuid- p.25. number 199&FEL-003557, the government has reviewedthe govenrment's case file, and proffers to the Court that, based on the information in the government's sase file, on October 12, 1996, the defendant entered a guilty pleato one count ofAttempted Fourth Degree Sexual Abuse, a lesser included offense of Count One of the indictment in thatcase, which was First Degrce Sexual Abuse While Armed. On December 6, 1996, the defendant was sentenced to 2 years under the Youth Act, the entirety of the sentence was suspended as to all but 7 months, which had been served, and 6 months probation. The government calculates the offcnse of conviction in that case, AttEURmpted Fourth Degree Sexual Abuse, as a .eMaster g,, offense, adding I point to the defendant's Criminat History Score . Accordingly, the government D" of the Master oalculatos the defendant as having a criminal history score of 4,5, placing him in "Column Grid, which renders thc defendant's guideline range as 126 to 216 months' imprisonment' pcriod The defendant's specific background reinforces the conclusion that an appropriately lengthy of incarceration is warranted. The defendant's conduct in this case is ofa piece with his broader, consistent criminal behavior going back to his youth in the early 1990's. That criminal background is extensive' oontinuous and dangerous. The defendant's criminal history consists of narcotics offenses, wcapons offenses, and a sex offense, all leading up to and oulminating in the instant offense. This case reprEURsents thc defendant's thifi-first arrest and his eloventh conviction. This extensive history demonstrates that the defendant rernains a sigrrificant danger to dre community if not adequatcly punished and rehabilitated. Of course, the defendant's dangerous drug use has contributed to his criminal history and goes far in explaining the causes ofhis criminality. The defendant's longstanding drug abuse, particularly his abuse of PCP, which is so destnrctive, has certainly given rise to, and exacetbated, mental health problems that the defendant has failed to address in his life. lnderd, the defendant committed the instant offense whilc in a PCP induced rage, unexplainable to the rational mind. The governmcnt is not unmindful of the circumstances in which the defendant was raised, and the nexus between those circumstanoes and the defendant's criminal behavior. Nevertheless, the defendant must be rnadeto aecount forhis behaviorof Aprit 11,2012, which caused thedeath of Mr. inflictcd so much damage to the victim's family C. Henderson, and as well as to tho broadercommunity. The Public's Interests ln Punlshmeni lleterrencer In this matter, theoffensecommitted bythedefendant lnd Rehabilitation wasofthe utmost seriousnoss and tho public's intertst is corrcspondingly strongly in favor of an appropriately lengthy period of incarceration. The defendant must be appropriately punished for so horribly and senselessty taking the life of Draynell Herrderuon. In addition, as is noted by the Presentence Report writer, the defendant poses a high risk to public safety, q Presentence Report, p. 23. Moreover, the defendant's criminality and background concerns that he may commit additional offensos, including violent offcnses, raise if he is released prematurEURly. Accordingly, the public's intercst in deterringthe dcfendantfromcommifiing further offenses, including acts ofviolence, likewise strongly favors a lengthy period of incaroeration. While the defendant's rehabilitation is always a consideration at sentencing, against this back drop, a lengthy period of incarceration is appropriate in this case. III. Governme4t's Recommeu4ation The defendant should receive the benefit ofthe plea bargain in this case and he should be credited for aooepting responsibility for his offense. Additionally, the defendant should be credited for sparing the government and the Court the resources required to bring the case to trial, as well as for sparing the family of DraynellHendersonthetraumaof relivingtheeventsof April 11,2012. Thedefendanthasalready rsecived much of that benefit. By entering a guilty plea in this case, the defendant limited his potential criminal exposune. That is, in exchangc for the dafondant's guilty plea in this oase, the government agreed to abandon its pursuit of grsatsr charges and sentsncing enhanoements to which the defondant was exposed. Moreoveq by acknowledging his criminal conduct, and by aoknowledging the harm that he has done to so many in taking the life of Draynoll HendEURrson, as well as to the oommunity as a whole, the defendant has shown his willingness to undertake the hard work of amending his life. See, Blackledqe v, Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71 (1977) (By entering guilty plea, 'the defendant avoids , . . the anxieties and unsertainties of a trial; he gains a speedy disposition of his case, the chance to acknowledge his guilt, and a prompt stErt in realizingwhatever potential there may be for rehabilitation. Judges and prosecutors conserve vital and scarce tEsources. The public is protected from the risks posed by those oharged with crirninal offenses who are at large on bail while awaiting oomplction of criminal proceedings."). Thc governmcnt recommends that the dcfendant's criminal conduct in this case uiarrants a scntcnoc thrt accurately reflcct his culpability. AccordinglS the govemment respectfully reoommends that &e Court honorthetenns of the plca agreement in this casc, made pursuantto SupcriorCourtRule 1l(eXlXC). The govEURrnment respectfully recommcnds that tho Court impose & scntence of 2M months' incarccration, followcd by a pcriod of Supcrvised Release of 5 years. Rcspectfu lly submitted, RONALD C. MAC}IEN JR. By: EDWARD A. O'CONNELL Assistant Unitcd States Attorney 555 Fourth StrcEURtNW Homicide Section - Room 9417 Washington, DC 20530 QVzt2s2-7420 Edu{fl rd.O' Connell(Dusdoj.qov Filed Scptember 19, 2012