Court Opinion

ID: 9467676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:53:38.795321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:27.537591
License: Public Domain

BARTELS, Senior District Judge,
dissenting.
With all due respect, I dissent, not because the sentence is excessively harsh, but because the district court failed to exercise its discretion in the imposition of the sentence. I agree with the majority’s statement of the general proposition of law that:
We have no power to change or reduce sentences imposed within the requisite legislative limits on the ground that the sentence is too severe, Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 [68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690] (1948), unless the trial court failed to exercise any discretion at all in imposing sentence. United States v. Main, 598 F.2d 1086, 1094 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 943 [100 S.Ct. 301, 62 L.Ed. 1690] (1979).
I add, however, as this court stated in United States v. Harris, 558 F.2d 366, 372 (7th Cir. 1977): “The process by which the trial judge determined the sentence is not insulated from appellate review.” This principle was also enunciated in United States v. Hartford, 489 F.2d 652, 654 (5th Cir. 1974), where the court said:
Appellate modification of a statutorily-authorized sentence ... is an entirely different matter than the careful scrutiny of the judicial process by which the particular punishment was determined. Rather than an unjustified incursion into the province of the sentencing judge, this latter responsibility is, on the contrary, a necessary incident of what has always been appropriate appellate review of criminal cases.
(Emphasis in original.) In quoting the above with approval, the Supreme Court in Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424, 443, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 3052, 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974) added: “Although well established doctrine bars review of the exercise of sentencing discretion, limited review is available when sentencing discretion is not exercised at all.” This principle was applied by the Supreme Court in Yates v. United States, 356 U.S. 363, 366-67, 78 S.Ct. 766, 768-769, 2 L.Ed.2d 837 (1958), and by this court in United States v. Wiley, 278 F.2d 500 (7th Cir. 1960). See also United States v. McKay, 491 F.2d 616, 624-25 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 972, 94 S.Ct. 1996, 40 L.Ed.2d 560 (1974).
Thus this court has a right to inquire whether the district court in imposing the sentence acted in a fundamentally unfair manner in the exercise of its discretion, or failed to exercise any discretion at all. This is no less true whether the sentence is reviewed directly or pursuant to an appeal from a Rule 35 denial. See United States v. Donner, 528 F.2d 276, 279 (7th Cir. 1976), overruled on other grounds, Lawary v. United States, 599 F.2d 218 (7th Cir. 1979).
Prior to imposing sentence, the district court had before it evidence of Dawson’s one prior conviction — for possession of marijuana. He had had no other serious brushes with the law. His childhood and adolescence were very unstable, due principally to his father’s drinking problem and his parents’ consequent divorce. Dawson was on his own at a very early age, and *1064despite his limited eighth grade education, he became a journeyman carpenter by trade. At the time of sentencing, Dawson was only 24 years old.
Following the imposition of the maximum 15-year prison term the court stated:
Now, as your attorney knows, the Court can reduce this sentence within 120 days if you can show that you have really seen the light and are on the right side of this drug problem. I don’t know what you know about your sources or anything at all, but you know whatever you know and you can be on the side of the law as well as on the opposite side. Actions speak louder than words in that regard.
To me it is clear from the above statement that there were two reasons why the district court said he would entertain a motion to reduce the sentence: 1) reformation and repentance; and 2) provision of information concerning defendant’s source of drugs. As to the first requirement, the numerous letters, affidavits, and recommendations more than satisfied that condition. While a post-conviction conversion is not a consideration a court must accept on a Rule 35 motion, the district judge here indicated that he would consider it in Dawson’s case. He did not. His failure to do so was a failure to exercise discretion and inconsistent “with that regularity and fairness which should characterize the administration of justice in the federal courts.” Saldana v. United States, 365 U.S. 646, 647, 81 S.Ct. 783, 784, 5 L.Ed.2d 855 (1961).
As to the second requirement, the majority admits that one of the conditions of the district court’s entertaining a motion to reduce would be Dawson’s decision to cooperate. The difficulty with imposing such a condition in this case appears from Dawson’s affidavit stating that the government already knew his drug source, a statement supported by the Presentence Report, wherein it was noted that: “At 12:40 a. m. on September 19, 1979, Dawson, after having stopped at his supplier’s home on Rock-land Road, Lake Bluff, Illinois, arrived at the restaurant, delivered 663.35 grams of cocaine to Stacy, and was arrested.” Moreover, Dawson made it clear that his failure to furnish any further information was out of fear for the safety of himself and his family. In its denial of the Rule 35 application, the district court did not address the sufficiency of the information already available, or of Dawson’s fears as legitimate reasons for his failure to cooperate. This case accordingly does not fall within the factual pattern of Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552, 100 S.Ct. 1358, 63 L.Ed.2d 622 (1980), which I suggest is no authority for the court’s denial of Dawson’s motion. In Roberts, the government needed the information that the defendant might have provided. Here it did not. Moreover, the defendant failed to cooperate out of his “continued solicitude for his former criminal enterprise”, not for fear. 445 U.S. at 562, 100 S.Ct. at 1365 (Brennan, J., concurring).
Finally, a further reading of the Presentence Report discloses that the district court completely and in every detail followed the recommendation for punishment of the probation officer, who did not have before him all the considerations that were before the district court at the time the latter considered the Rule 35 motion. Moreover, in its Order of April 30, 1980 denying Dawson’s Rule 35 motion, the district court never expressly passed upon his additional request that his sentence be served pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4205(b)(2). This aspect of the sentence was not raised upon appeal because the lower court never ruled on the question. The district court therefore still retains jurisdiction to consider the same. See, e. g., United States v. Gee, 56 F.R.D. 377 (D.Tex.1972); United States v. Feliciano-Grafals, 309 F.Supp. 1292 (D.Puerto Rico 1970).
By reason of the foregoing, it is my conclusion, with due deference to the district court, that the Rule 35 denial should be vacated and the case remanded for review and consideration of the above factors. At least the district court should rule expressly on the application for a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4205(b)(2).