A Sign of the Times in Sentencing?
Tuesday, October 2nd by Robert LoblawU.S. v. Cirilo-Munoz, 05-2469 (1st Cir., Oct. 2, 2007)
How’s this for a sentencing appeal? From today’s First Circuit decision:
It is the decision of the court, by vote of the majority, that Ernesto Cirilo-Muñoz’s sentence is vacated and remanded. One judge votes for that remand because of his view that the sentence imposed is unreasonable and that the explanation for it is inadequate. The other judge votes for remand because of the inadequacy of the sentencing explanation. One judge dissents from this remand decision.
The majority of the court has rejected defendant’s sentencing arguments that the sentence was unreasonable because there was insufficient evidence to convict him and, separately, that the fact of the sentence disparity between defendant and Lugo itself establishes that the sentence is unreasonable. Two judges of the court disagree as to whether there was a Guidelines error as to the minimal participant issue; the third judge finds it unnecessary to address the issue on appeal in light of the remand for resentencing.
This result is explained by the three attached opinions.
This is a highly unusual case, involving the assassination of an undercover police officer. The defendant, who played a minor role after the fact, was sentenced to twenty-seven years (having initially receiving a life sentence), while the actual assassin only received seventeen years. Still, when three reasonable appellate judges can’t agree on how to evaluate a sentence, maybe it’s time to admit that a mandatory sentencing regime wasn’t such a bad thing.
October 2nd, 2007 at 4:39 pm
CA1: On sentencing, The First Circuit goes deep into the record and comes up with parsimony and standards of review…
US v. Cirilo-Munoz, No. 05-2469. The earlier opinion is here, and our coverage is here. As DotD points out here, this case shows just how divided judges are about what Booker and its progeny really direct Courts of Appeal to…