9 results for 'cat:"Drug Offender" AND cat:"Sentencing" AND cat:"Due Process"'.
J. Graves finds that the district court improperly sentenced defendant on his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The district court adopted certain "facts" in a pre-sentence report that lacked an adequate evidentiary basis. The application of the career offender enhancement to defendant's conviction was improper. Vacated.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Graves , Filed On: May 30, 2024, Case #: 21-30739, Categories: drug Offender, sentencing, due Process
J. Batchelder finds the eight-year supervised release term imposed by the trial court after defendant violated the conditions of his initial release did not exceed the statutory maximum. Defendant's underlying drug conviction, which involved the distribution of a cocaine-based substance, includes no limit on the maximum number of years for such a sentence. Meanwhile, the trial court's inclusion of all conditions of defendant's term of supervised release in a publicly available order provided sufficient notice and did not violate his due process rights. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Batchelder, Filed On: May 20, 2024, Case #: 23-5571, Categories: drug Offender, sentencing, due Process
J. Easter finds the lower court improperly dismissed defendant’s motion for a new trial. Defendant was convicted on multiple drug-related offenses, including the sale and delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, and received an effective 33 year sentence. The Governor of Tennessee subsequently partially granted defendant executive clemency, his sentences for the sale and delivery of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school were commuted and he immediately became eligible for parole on those counts. The lower court found defendant ineligible for resentencing based on his commutation order and dismissed the pending motion for new trial. The instant court finds defendant was denied his day in court for his motion for resentencing and the lower court should have continued with the scheduled evidentiary hearing. The matter is remanded for a hearing. Reversed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Easter, Filed On: April 22, 2024, Case #: E2023-00149-CCA-R3-CD, Categories: drug Offender, sentencing, due Process
J. Golemon finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for possession with intent to deliver and manufacture a controlled substance. Although he was arraigned outside the presence of the jury, and in front of the sworn jury, defendant did not appear at his trial. The court sentenced him to 25 years in prison outside his presence. Defendant failed to explain his absence and did not file a motion for new trial or supplement the record with evidence explaining his absence. The appeals court defers to the trial court’s voluntariness determination. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Golemon , Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: 09-23-00106-CR, Categories: drug Offender, sentencing, due Process
J. Higginson finds the trial court improperly sentenced defendant for his guilty plea conviction on charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute meth. Though defendant completed pretrial drug treatment, he also tested positive for drugs and was arrested for possession. The government breached the plea agreement clause promising to recommend a reduction for acceptance of responsibility as a penalty for his breach of the pretrial release conditions. Though the sentence was within guidelines, the government has failed to rebut the presumption that its breach affected the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. Vacated.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Higginson , Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: 22-50872, Categories: drug Offender, sentencing, due Process
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Pratt finds the trial court wrongfully considered defendant's lawful possession of firearms when sentencing him to 87 months in prison for charges related to selling more than 25 pounds of marijuana, even though defendant was not charged with any gun crimes. According to statements made at sentencing, the judge may have relied on defendant's constitutional right to lawful firearm possession when sentencing him, and that is prohibited by due process. Defendant's sentences are vacated, and the case is remanded for re-sentencing under a different judge.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Pratt, Filed On: January 12, 2024, Case #: 22-0703, Categories: drug Offender, sentencing, due Process
J. Wright finds the trial court properly assessed $937 in court costs for defendant's conviction of possession of less than 1 gram of meth. Though the trial court did not orally pronounce a $500 fine, and so could not include it in the final judgment, the same rule does not apply to taxable costs, which are not part of the punishment. Defendant has not shown that the court erred by rendering a judgment including $937 in taxable costs. The $500 fine is deleted. Affirmed as modified.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Wright , Filed On: September 20, 2023, Case #: 09-22-00198-CR, Categories: drug Offender, sentencing, due Process
J. Ikuta affirms in part and vacates in part a sentence imposed on defendant after she alleged that her due process rights were violated when the district court failed to pronounce certain discretionary conditions of supervised release in her presence. A district court must orally pronounce all discretionary conditions of supervised release, even if those conditions were considered "standard." Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of knowingly and intentionally importing 500 grams or more of cocaine and methamphetamine into the United States. The panel vacated only the conditions of defendant’s supervised release that were referred to as the “standard conditions” in the written sentence but were not orally pronounced. Affirmed in part.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Ikuta, Filed On: September 13, 2023, Case #: 21-50129, Categories: drug Offender, sentencing, due Process
J. Pryor finds that the district court properly sentenced defendant to 50 months in prison following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin and 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Although the sentence was not unreasonable and the district court properly imposed a sentencing enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance, the district court incorrectly imposed conditions of supervised release in the written judgment which were not included in defendant's oral sentence. Defendant is not entitled to resentencing based on technical malfunctions during the Zoom video conference sentencing hearing. Defendant failed to show that the technical difficulties affected the sentence he received. Affirmed in part.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Pryor, Filed On: August 1, 2023, Case #: 20-13534, Categories: drug Offender, sentencing, due Process