Crack Sentencing « CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

January 30, 2009

JUDICIAL WAR OVER CRACK SENTENCING COMES TO AN END

Filed under: Drug Defense Attorney — Tags: appeals, Booker, Crack Sentencing, Crack/Powder Cocaine Ratio, drugs, Illegal drugs — johntfloyd @ 6:45 pm

Moore and Spears: District Courts have Discretion to Reject the 100:1 Crack/Powder Cocaine Ratio

By: Houston Criminal Defense Attorney John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

Last October we posted a blog entitled “The Judicial Wars Invoked by Crack Sentencing” (Oct. 24, 2008). The blog focused on a judicial tiff between the U.S. Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of James Eric Moore. We are pleased to report that the Supreme Court has finally put this issue to bed in two cases this Term.

This judicial controversy actually began on January 12, 2005 when the Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling that federal district courts were not required to impose precise sentences recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. See: United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The Court said the Guidelines were advisory in nature, and not mandatory sentencing requirements. Id., at 245-46.

As we reported last October, U.S. District Court Judge Linda Reade, Northern District of Iowa, on November 21, 2005, imposed a term of 188 months of confinement and six years of supervised release on James Eric Moore following a jury conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Relying upon the recent Booker decision, Moore asked Judge Reade to impose a sentence below the one recommended by the Guidelines. The judge replied:

“With regard to the crack and power cocaine difference, that is the law. I’m applying the law as it currently stands. If that is going to be changed, that is a congressional matter. Congress is the one who looks at the guidelines and decides whether or not they should be put in—in force … It isn’t the judges. It’s the lawmakers, and I have taken an oath to apply the law, and that’s what I will do in this sentencing.” (more…)

Comments (0)

October 25, 2008

THE JUDICIAL WARS INVOKED BY CRACK SENTENCING

Filed under: Drug Defense Attorney, federal Appeals Attorney — Tags: appeals, Booker, Crack Sentencing, drug laws, Supreme Court — johntfloyd @ 5:24 am

Supreme Court: Federal Judges Have Discretion at Sentencing

By Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

Under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, a federal district court judge must consider each of the factors prescribed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when imposing an appropriate criminal sentence. The § 3553 factors are:

“Nature and circumstances of the offense” and defendant’s “history and characteristics.” Id., at (a)(1). Under U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence the sentencing judge is limited to those facts (1) “reflected in the jury verdict,” (2) admitted by the defendant, (3) contained in defendant’s guilty plea, or (4) reflect prior convictions. See: Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 (2004) [facts affecting sentence must be found by a jury].
The general purpose of the Sentencing Reform Act. Id., at (a)(2). The purposes of this Act are to have a sentence “(A) reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (d) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner …”
The types of sentences available. Id., at (a)(3).
The policy statements of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Id., at (a)(5).
The need to avoid sentencing disparities between defendants convicted of similar conduct. Id., at (a)(6).
The need to provide restitution to victims. Id., at (a)(7).
The applicable sentence range recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Id., at (a)(4).

Three years ago the United States Supreme Court held that the Guidelines are advisory and federal district courts were not required to impose the precise sentence recommended by the Guidelines. See: United States v. Booker, 549 U.S. 220, 245-46 (2005). Two years later the Supreme Court overruled the longstanding legal premise that district courts had to apply a provision of the Guidelines that made one gram of crack cocaine the equivalent of 100 grams of powder cocaine for sentencing purposes. See: Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558, 575 (2007).

In the wake of Booker, the Honorable Linda R. Reade of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on November 21, 2005 sentenced James Eric Moore to a term of 188 months in confinement and six years of supervised release following a conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Moore had asked Judge Reade to impose a below-Guidelines sentence in light of the recent Booker decision. The judge replied: (more…)

Comments (0)