Tenth Circuit affirms 55-year mandatory minimum sentence for pot

madmusic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-20-06 10:47 PM
Original message

Tenth Circuit affirms 55-year mandatory minimum sentence for pot

Tenth Circuit affirms 55-year mandatory minimum sentence in Angelos

In a decision that is not surprising but is still disappointing, the Tenth Circuit has affirmed in US v. Angelos, No. 04-4282 (10th Cir. Jan. 9, 2006) (available here), the sentence given to Weldon Angelos, a first offender who was begrudgingly sentenced to 55 years' imprisonment by Judge Paul Cassell for marijuana sales under federal mandatory minimums. Back in November 2004, the Angelos case made headlines because Judge Cassell wrote a lengthy opinion in which he lamented being compelled to impose a sentence he considered to be cruel, unusual, and irrational. (More background on Judge Cassell's initial remarkable decision is here, and commentary here and here.)

The Tenth Circuit in Angelos concludes "that this is not an 'extraordinary' case in which the sentences at issue are 'grossly disproportionate' to the crimes for which they were imposed." In a remarkable passage, the Tenth Circuit faults Judge Cassell for having "erroneously downplayed the seriousness of Angelos's crimes":

Although the district court concluded that Angelos's sentence was disproportionate to his crimes, we disagree. In our view, the district court failed to accord proper deference to Congress's decision to severely punish criminals who repeatedly possess firearms in connection with drug-trafficking crimes, and erroneously downplayed the seriousness of Angelos's crimes. Although it is true that Angelos had no significant adult criminal history, that appears to have been the result of good fortune rather than Angelos's lack of involvement in criminal activity. The evidence presented by the government at trial clearly established that Angelos was a known gang member who had long used and sold illicit drugs. Further, the government's evidence established that, at the time of his arrest, Angelos was a mid-to-high drug dealer who purchased and in turn sold large quantities of marijuana. In addition, the government's evidence established that Angelos possessed and used a number of firearms, some stolen, to facilitate his drug-dealing activities. Lastly, the evidence established that although Angelos had some involvement in the music industry, he failed to financially profit from that involvement and indeed never reported any positive earnings to the Internal Revenue Service. Thus, the only reasonable inference that could be drawn was that Angelos's sole source of income was his drug-trafficking operations.

To my knowledge, the allegations that Angelos was a tax cheat or possessed stolen guns or sold large quantities of marijuana have never been proven to a jury. But, of course, that would only matter in some alternative universe in which lower federal courts actually take the principles of Blakely seriously. In the Tenth Circuit, apparently a defendant's reputation, and not simply the crimes of conviction, are central to an analysis of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.

Early press coverage of the Tenth Circuit's decision in Angelos is available from the AP and from the Salt Lake Tribune. Though overshadowed by the Alito hearings � and I cannot help but cynically wonder if the timing is not a mere coincidence � the Angelos case will likely get a new round of media attention. But, to echo my recent comments about the dynamics of sentencing reform, I wonder if anyone in the libertarian/conservative crowd, which claims to champion liberty and small government, will speak out against what seems to be an excessively long punishment.

The SCOTUS will decide to hear this case or not this week. What is most important is that it was rumors rather than the conviction itself that sunk him. Such is the world of mandatory sentencing. Bet you didn't know it could happen like this. Indeed, the SCOTUS Blakely decision was supposed to require proof before a jury rather than rumor, but that is the hot debate in legal circles, it seems. Prosecutors ignore it all they can, and judges evidently play along sometimes.

There are links at the blog: http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/01/angelos_55year_.html