home

Appeals Court Upholds 55 Year Mandatory Sentence

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 08:20:48 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld the gun-nutty 55 year mandatory sentence of 27 year old Weldon Angelos, who had no prior felony convictions.

Angelos was in possession of a gun, that he neither brandished, used nor displayed, when he conducted three marijuana sales. The total amount of pot involved was 24 ounces.

"Four former U.S. attorneys general and nearly 160 other ex-Justice Department officials and federal judges" filed an amicus brief on his behalf, arguing the sentence was so excessive as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. In upholding the sentence,

.... the appeals court judges said they agreed with prosecutors who said the sentence was appropriate for Angelos' convictions and for other behavior involving drugs, guns and gang activity that prosecutors had evidence of, but did not charge him with.

"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' lack of involvement in criminal activity," said the ruling, written by Judge Mary Beck Briscoe.

As for how the sentence was computed,

Under the law he was convicted of violating three times, a first offense carries a mandatory minimum five-year sentence, and each subsequent conviction carries a mandatory minimum 25-year sentence that must run back-to-back with any other sentences.

Last year's landmark decision in U.S. v. Booker did not affect the case, since it was not about the sentencing guidelines, but mandatory minimum sentences.

FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums) has a webpage devoted to Mr. Angelos' case, with links to decisions, briefs and news articles.

The trial court's sentencing decision is here (pdf). Today's Tenth Circuit decision is here.

Update: I'm advised by Harry Rimm, who authored the draft of the brief for the 10th Circuit that:

We had 163 signatories for the Brief to the 10th Circuit, including former US Attorneys General, former US Attorneys, other former high ranking DOJ officials, retired federal Circuit judges and retired federal District Judges.

< N.J. Passes Execution Moratorium | Blogger Off to Africa and War Crimes Trial >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Appeals Court Upholds 55 Year Mandatory Sentence | 7 comments (7 topical)
    Re: Appeals Court Upholds 55 Year Mandatory Sente (none / 0) (#1)
    by phat on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 09:09:26 PM EST
    .... the appeals court judges said they agreed with prosecutors who said the sentence was appropriate for Angelos' convictions and for other behavior involving drugs, guns and gang activity that prosecutors had evidence of, but did not charge him with
    This is as telling a statement I've seen in a long time. I guess the whole innocent before guilty thing doesn't count anymore. phat

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds 55 Year Mandatory Sente (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 10:03:54 PM EST
    Yeah, seriously. That should be grounds for another appeal. What's next? Judges bring up past acquittals because "everyone knew you were really guilty?" It's the same reasoning.

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds 55 Year Mandatory Sente (none / 0) (#3)
    by wishful on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:43:41 AM EST
    Scar, "Judge" Briscoe wrote:
    "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' lack of involvement in criminal activity," said the ruling, written by Judge Mary Beck Briscoe.
    So I guess it's too late to be next. We have already arrived at "everyone knew you were really guilty" as legitimate judicial reasoning for depriving us of our liberty. Too bad we no longer get to defend ourselves. Oh well, maybe Iraq really is as close to American democracy as Bushco claims.

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds 55 Year Mandatory Sente (none / 0) (#4)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 06:46:55 AM EST
    Hate to break it to ya, StarShaped, but the Supreme Court in 1997 upheld the use of "acquitted conduct" -- exactly as you describe -- to justify enhancing the sentence on a later conviction. The cite is US v Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (per curiam). The judge in the later case has to be persuaded by a "preponderance" of "reliable" evidence that the defendant actually did commit the prior crime, and the nature of the prior acts must be "relevant" to the new sentencing. The Supreme Court majority "explained" that this was not double jeopardy or inconsistent with the prior jury's "not guilty" verdict, because all it takes for an acquittal is that the jury be left with a reasonable doubt. Only Justices Stevens and Kennedy dissented, and Kennedy's dissent went solely to the fact that the Supreme Court majority considered the issue so clear and obvious that it didn't even allow the defendant's lawyer to file a full brief or make argument on the point. (Kennedy wanted to treat the case as warranting full briefing and argument.)

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds 55 Year Mandatory Sente (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 08:30:06 AM EST
    Peter G, So let me get this straight. If you are arrested and not convicted, they can still use the fact that you were arrested and held, but not convicted, as evidence in future court actions that you are a criminal? Why aren't those nine idiots getting the boot? And by the way. I think Sandra Day O'Connor is a disgrace. Despite her "swing vote" fan clubs, it is well known that she is not retiring. She is just changing jobs. She will be the Chancellor of the College of William and Mary. She's not retiring to take care of her sick husband, as we were told. Also, if you google SDO and do some research, you quickly find that she refused to retire while a Dem was president. Thanks Sandy. You've enabled the Bushies more than Scalia or Thomas could ever have hoped to imagine.

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds 55 Year Mandatory Sente (none / 0) (#6)
    by yudel on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 09:01:47 AM EST
    Actually, the decision's claim that "subsequent conviction" should apply to a conviction by the same jury in the same trial seems mighty thin -- and highly problematic. IANAL, but that seems like grounds for an appeal. I know that I'm just a citizen, and therefore of no consequence in the present regime, but I've always assumed that three-strikes laws were about crimes committed by someone who had already been convicted the first two times -- not someone who had no criminal convictions at the time they committed the crime.

    Re: Appeals Court Upholds 55 Year Mandatory Sente (none / 0) (#7)
    by libdevil on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 09:22:34 AM EST
    Also, if you google SDO and do some research, you quickly find that she refused to retire while a Dem was president.
    Yes, and when she wanted to retire, she found herself in the position to decide whether the next president would be a Rep or a Dem. Very convenient for her, utterly disastrous for the country. But I'm sure that didn't have any bearing on her decision making. Just as I'm sure the other justices were immune to political considerations, since the ruling is so consistent with their previous views.

    Appeals Court Upholds 55 Year Mandatory Sentence | 7 comments (7 topical)