Posted on 12/04/2006 2:25:37 PM PST by kiriath_jearim
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a mandatory 55-year prison sentence, condemned as excessive by the federal judge who imposed it, for a man convicted of carrying a handgun during three marijuana deals.
Record producer Weldon Angelos received the minimum sentence under the law -- a harsher sentence than a child rapist or a terrorist who detonates a bomb aboard an aircraft would receive, according to his attorneys. The justices, without comment, left the prison term undisturbed.
Angelos was convicted of 16 counts of violating federal firearms, drug and money laundering laws in 2003. The charges stemmed from his sale of three 8-ounce bags of marijuana to an undercover informant.
He had a gun but never brandished or used it. Nevertheless, the three counts of possession of a firearm in a drug transaction required the mandatory minimum sentence.
Four former attorneys general and 145 former prosecutors and judges wrote in support of a lighter sentence for Angelos. Even the sentencing judge, U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell, an appointee of President Bush, called the sentence "unjust, cruel and irrational." But he said the law left him no choice.
Prosecutors said the sentence was appropriate and an appeals court agreed.
The case is Angelos v. U.S., 06-26.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
The court had no choice but to disagree.
While I do not agree with the spirit of this law, at least the courts chose not to take an activist stand and ignore Congress' will.
They are stupid questions. I favor sentences imposed based on existing laws. There are no such laws concerning your examples
That's not right.....the only thing wrong here is that murderers' sentences are always TOO lenient....
Oops...your post beat mine by 15 minutes! But I sure agree with YOU!
I agree. It is outrageous how judges in several states have given a pass to violent pedophiles. There should be mandatory minimum sentences.
------
Anyone who thinks liberalism has not permeated and ruined out judicial system, has their head in the sand...or elsewhere. Child molestors (multiple) get six month sentences while this beggar gets 55 years. There is just too much left in the hands of the LIBERAL ACTIVISTS on the bench -- they are dangerous and should be replaced.
I'm sure you'll catch a lot of flack for your comment.....but I'm with you!
If you can't do the time, DON'T DO THE CRIME!
While that is correct as far as it goes, it leaves out a few details one can find elsewhere: Prosecutors originally offered Weldon a plea bargain that would have required him to serve 15 years on two charges, but when he rejected this plea he was indicted on 20 charges that mandated a minimum sentence of 105 years. The charges included weapons possession, drug trafficking, and money laundering. At trial, the jury convicted Weldon of 13 various drug, firearm, and money laundering charges as well as three counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; one charge was dismissed and he was acquitted of three others. He received a sentence of 55 years for the three counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Two of these three counts resulted from the gun he allegedly carried during the buys with the CI and the third count resulted from a handgun found in a bag containing $19,000 in cash that was discovered when police searched his home. The first count required a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and the other two counts each carried a consecutive 25-year mandatory minimum sentence. Weldon’s sentence for all 16 charges combined is 55 years.
So while the sentence is harsh, it is the law. Had he not violated the law he would have been a free man. Knowing of his guilt, he perhaps should have accepted the 15 year plea bargain. He didn't and paid the price.
If the court overturned the sentence which the legislature wrote into it's law that would, indeed, be tyranny.
No one is free in a country where the judges write the law.
And the judges are the very ones to blame for the harshness of this guy's sentence!
It was the arbitary and downright frivolous sentencing practices of judges that caused the legislature to write these awkward and iron bound mandatory sentencing guidelines.
More people are killed in this country by idiot drug dealers than by terrorists. It is not surprising that the law would treat them harshly.
Ridiculous but what is rational about the WosD.
If SCOTUS can strike down the death penalty for juveniles based on the Eighth Amendment and some evolving international standard, then this case should be much easier to strike down as amounting to cruel and unusual punishment.
The question is who gets to decide minimum sentences in this country. Our legislatures or our judges?
We'd better leave it to the legislatures. They may not always get it right, but I bet they do as well as the judges would.
Anyone who believes a major drug dealer would sell three 1/2 lbs bags of pot will apparently believe anything.
The police found it on him after he was arrested and searched. If he were not arrested, no one would have known he had it.
The gun was used to show what a tough guy the punk is to his customers.
No, the gun was there in case his "clients" decided they would rather have all his marijuana and and their money back, and any other money he was carrying.
They are stupid questions.
Well, you are entitled to your stupid opinion. But the questions are relevant to the debate, whether you’re capable of wrapping your brain around that fact or not.
Laws creating extra sentences for the mere possession of a gun during the commission of an unrelated crime are designed to link gun ownership with more serious crimes. If the gun was not brandished or used, it is irrelevant to the actual crime committed. It’s like adding extra years because he was wearing a watch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.