Court Opinion

ID: 9545587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:15:51.547051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:08.824521
License: Public Domain

GERBER, Judge,
dissenting in part; concurring in part.
I concur totally with the majority’s conclusion that the $137,000 fine is excessive under the Eighth Amendment. According to the defendant’s uncontested accounts, this defendant was in the United States via an immigration permit; he was not an illegal alien, despite suggestions to the contrary at sentencing. He had four children and a wife. At the time of his offense, he had no money for rent, was living off charity, and had neither a place to live nor any means to support his family. He broke a window and entered a house in search of something to sell to feed his family. The jewelry he took was valued at $250; the window he broke cost $258 to repair. He admitted his guilt to police, courts, and probation officer. He was charged and convicted of a Class 6 felony. He served 71 days in jail prior to sentencing. At sentencing, the pro tern judge imposed upon him a flat year of incarceration plus 400 hours of community service, plus the $137,000 fine.
Without condoning the clearly criminal behavior involved, I find the sentence imposed on this defendant not only excessive under the Eighth Amendment but also demeaning to our collective sense of fairness in punishment, which traditionally has been guided by a sense of proportionality to the crime. I have not seen a clearer instance of a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
I dissent in part from the majority’s conclusion regarding the effect of the fine as an immigration control device. The record admittedly is inconsistent and ambiguous. It indicates at one point that the sentencing judge said, “I’m going to insist that after you complete your jail time that you be deported.” This “insistence” is beyond the authority of a sentencing judge, for authority to deport rests exclusively with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. Regarding defendant’s potential to return to the United States, the record, again ambiguous, suggests a similar flaw. While there are indications both in the sentencing record and in term 19 of the probation form that this defendant is not to reenter the United States “illegally,” there are other prohibitions on reentry, greater in number and vehemence, which are not qualified by the term “illegal.” For example:
“If you come back here again, you’re going to face the wrath of this court____ You’re going to go to prison.”
“The fine is suspended so long as you remain outside the U.S.A.”
“So long as you stay outside of the United States, you don’t have to pay the fine....”
“So long as you stay outside the United States, that’s all you have to do. But if you come back here, the whole world will fall on you____”
In addition to these oral bans, term 20 on the probation form states that “all terms of probation except terms 1, 13, and 19 are suspended so long as you remain outside the U.S.A.” Since the $137,000 fine is term 12, one must conclude that the fine is suspended only so long as this defendant remains outside the United States.
The message in these unqualified excerpts is that the fine of $137,000 need not be paid as long as the defendant stays outside the United States but is to be paid whenever he reenters the United States even legally. This excessive fine thus ap*505pears as an immigration barrier to reentry to the United States even for legitimate purposes. Using the fine for this purpose constitutes an abuse of authority for reasons already stated.
Finally, and regretably, one is compelled to comment upon the demeanor of the court in imposing sentence. The comments made by the sentencing judge include the following:
“If you come back here again, you’re going to face the wrath of this court. You’re going to go to prison. And what’s more, if you ever take anything that doesn’t belong to you again, you can expect to get the maximum prison sentence for it. That will not be tolerated here.”
[Defendant] “I won’t do it again. I haven’t did it since then.”
“Well, if you do, you can kiss the rest of your life away, Mr. Marquez, and you can kiss your family goodbye because you won’t have them anymore. If you care about your family, then you demonstrate it by your conduct____”
“The United States Immigration Services indicates that they are going to deport you anyway. So the minute you get out of jail they are going to kick you out of the country, Mr. Marquez.”
“So long as you stay outside of the United States, that’s all you have to do. But if you come back here, the whole world will fall on you. If you think you had trouble before, Mr. Marquez, just come back, and you’ll find out what trouble really means.”
Sentencing judges need feel no reason to treat convicted defendants with the niceties of a formal tea party. Nonetheless, this intemperance brings the court itself into disrepute. While not grounds for reversal, this diatribe recalls Winston Churchill’s observation that the truest barometer of a nation’s claim to be civilized is its treatment of its criminals. This record, I fear, shows a falling barometer.