U.S. v. Bonilla, 06-40894 (5^th Cir., April 16, 2008)

With most eyes focused on a trio of major sentencing decisions issued yesterday by the Supreme Court, it was easy to miss this divided Fifth Circuit sentencing decision. But it is definitely worth a read. The defendant appeals his forty-one month sentence for being in the United States after deportation. He argues that the district court erred in applying a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement based on his previous crime of attempted manslaughter.

All three panelists agree that the district court should not have applied the sixteen-level enhancement. But the majority of Chief Judge Jones and Judge Davis affirms the sentence anyway, based on the district judge’s statement that even if he was wrong about the enhancement, he would have given the defendant the same sentence. Although the majority concedes that the district court did not give a suitable rationale for this “alternative” sentence, the majority opts to examine the record and create its own rationale.

Judge Garza strongly dissents, arguing that the majority’s willingness to gloss over the district court’s error flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s recent sentencing decisions. And the majority’s decision to scour the record for facts to support the district court’s “alternative” sentence for the sake of efficiency will end up creating a lot more work for appellate courts.

Posted Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:06:04 and filed under Sentencing, Decision of the Day. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.