Dobie v. United States

── Dobie v. United States ── Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 24-CO-0294 GOLDIE DOBIE, APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2001-FEL-006539) (Jennifer M. Anderson, Judge) (Argued November 5, 2025 Decided May 28, 2026) Sarah McDonald, Public Defender Service, with whom Jaclyn S. Frankfurt and Shilpa S. Satoskar, were on the briefs, for appellant. R. Alan Darby, Assistant United States Attorney, for appellee. Matthew M. Graves, United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed, and Chrisellen R. Kolb, Kristina Ament, and Amanda Claire Hoover, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief for appellee. Before BLACKBURNE-RIGSBY, Chief Judge, SHANKER, Associate Judge, and WASHINGTON, Senior Judge. WASHINGTON, Senior Judge: In this appeal, Goldie Dobie (appellant) argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a reduction in sentence under the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (IRAA), D.C. Code  2 § 24-403.03. He contends, among other things, that the trial court erred by relying too heavily on his juvenile criminal history when assessing his current dangerousness and concluding that a reduction in his sentence is unwarranted in the interest of justice because he committed and suborned perjury during a prior Innocence Protection Act proceeding, D.C. Code §§ 22-4131 to -4135. The government counters that the trial court did not err in considering appellant’s juvenile history in tandem with other factors as part of its dangerousness determination and that the record supports the trial court’s finding that a reduction in appellant’s sentence is not in the interests of justice based on appellant’s committing and suborning perjury in an earlier proceeding. For the following reasons, we vacate the trial court’s order and remand the case for further consideration. 1 I. Background This court has considered multiple appeals from appellant related to his conviction for the September 8, 2000, shooting of Mallie Scott and Damon Appellant’s Motion to Recaption this Case Using Appellant’s Initials is 1 DENIED.  3 McQuarters. Our Memorandum Opinion and Judgment disposing of his direct appeal laid out the relevant facts underlying his conviction: On September 8, 2000, Mallie Scott, Damon McQuarters, and Jovan Jackson were parked on the 3300 block of 11th Street N.W., when they were approached by three men. Scott knew these men as Dobie, Nook (“Jones”), and Kareem. While the conversation started friendly, at some point it took a sour turn when Jones told the occupants, “Why you keep riding through my block?” The conversation was interrupted when a station wagon stopped next to the parked car. Dobie, Jones, and Kareem exchanged “what’s up” with the station wagon and brandished guns kept in the waistband of their pants. Sensing danger, Scott tried to exit the parking spot by making a U-turn. According to Scott, Jones then turned to Dobie and stated, “Go ahead what you’re gonna do.” Immediately, Dobie, Jones, and Kareem began to shoot