Main/Can sentencing arguments that don't win still impact the overall sentence?

Judges really don't like being reversed.  I base this on the fact that judges who were rarely reversed and who I thought wouldn't have cared about the occasional, inevitable reversal will still complain about it when it does happen.

Consequently, I believe it's always a good thing at any sentencing to have the judge take into account the possibility that even if I'm wrong about the law, there's a chance the COA will think I'm right.

What am I talking about?  Let me provide a couple of examples.  If you've read many of my blog posts, or read me on the defense lawyer listserve, you know that I believe that when the gun minimum is charged on multiple counts, it must be imposed on the primary offense and only the primary offense.  For example, if the defendant is charged with murder with a firearm and felon in possession of a firearm with a firearm, the gun minimum of five years must be imposed on the murder charge (assumingf it's the first gun minimum that defendant has ever faced -- if it's the second gun minimum, it gets a little complicated, in some ways good for the defendant, in other ways bad.)  (Why does it matter if it's imposed on the murder charge or, say, the felon in possession?  Because if imposed on the felon in possession, the judge has the ability to impose a longer sentence than if it's imposed on the murder charge.)  

I have argued this at the trial level, and no judge has expressly said I'm right about the law, but some of them haven't said I was wrong either.  The judge simply chose to impose the gun minimum on the most serious count, simply because they wanted to (or so they said) and not because I told them they legally had to.  From a judge's point of view, this had the advantage of avoiding the possibility of reversible error.  At the same time, it didn't bind them to a legal outcome they would have to follow in future cases.  

I personally think in some of the cases at least, the judge was motivated in part to avoid reversible error.  Maybe not.  There's no way to know for certain. (Incidentally, this issue has been preserved in a number of cases by a number of great attorneys, so we should have a definitive answer within two years.)  

I want to give another example of a legal argument that didn't win, yet maybe influenced the outcome of a sentencing.  I had a client back for re-sentencing.  He was already servicing a life/25 sentence for murder, but that case wasn't back for re-sentencing.  It was a separate case in which he got twenty years to be served consecutively to the murder charge that was back for re-sentencing.

As it turned out, the client had done great in prison.  Truly impressive stuff.  I used that information to argue why she shouldn't run twenty years consecutively to the murder sentence.  But I also argued at re-sentencing that any sentence run consecutively to a murder charge was subject to the proportionality analysis under Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution.  Specifically, I noted that my client wouldn't serve any of the consecutive sentence unless the parole board had found his rehabilitation was imminent.  (And they would likely make that finding, given how well he had done in the past ten years, but who knows.)  If Article I, section 16, requires that courts take into account the personal characteristics of the defendant when determining the constitutionality of the long sentence, the fact that rehabilitation is imminent certainly should impact whether the additional twenty years was proportionate.  

On the law, the judge disagreed.  But she only ran eight years consecutively to the life/25 he was already serving, a substantial reduction to what she had imposed the first time around.  Was it due entirely to my client's remarkable accomplishments while in prison?  Or did she worry that an additional twenty-year sentence might trigger the proportionality analysis and have the case sent back for a third sentencing?  Or was it simply that she recognized the absurdity -- even if it were constitutional -- of adding another twenty years to be served -- and only served -- after the defendant was rehabilitated?

That last question is key.  Even if I'm wrong about the application of Article I, section 16, in that situation, there is something totally absurd about a lengthy sentence that's ''only'' served ''after'' rehabiliation.  Even my pro-prosecution, non-lawyer family members think that's crazy.  

Again, there is no way of knowing why the judge reduced the sentence or if she would have reduced it to the same degree minus the proportionality argument.  That's sorta my point.  Judges may reject legal arguments but still be swayed, by either the logic of the legal argument or the risk of reversal, to end up at the same place.   

And if the legal arguments don't seem to make a difference at all at sentencing, then at least your client has a shot at re-sentencing, which, per my first post today, can also lead to a much better outcome down the road.
{{wl-publish: 2024-07-14 13:42:25 -0700 | Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com:Ryan  Scott  }}