Houston v. US
Decision Date | 19 June 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 88-493.,88-493. |
Parties | Joseph E. HOUSTON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Veronice A. Holt, appointed by this court, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Andrew S. Levetown, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom Jay B. Stephens, U.S. Atty., and John R. Fisher, Thomas J. Tourish, Jr., Noel A. Brennan, and Daniel M. Cisin, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the brief, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before ROGERS, Chief Judge, and FERREN and TERRY, Associate Judges.
Appellant Houston pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of heroin, a misdemeanor, in violation of D.C.Code § 33-541(d) (1988). After rejecting Houston's request to be sentenced under D.C. Code § 33-541(e) (1988), the trial court sentenced Houston to 180 days in jail, suspended execution of that sentence, and placed him on probation for eighteen months, with certain conditions.1 Houston challenges the trial court's refusal to sentence him under section 33-541(e). We vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.
At sentencing, the following occurred:
The trial court, after hearing from Houston himself, then sentenced him to a 180-day suspended sentence with eighteen months' probation, without any further discussion of the possibility of sentencing under section 33-541(e).
As the statutory language makes clear, the decision to sentence under section 33-541(e) rather than section 33-541(d) is entrusted to the trial court's discretion.2 See Neal v. United States, supra note 1, 571 A.2d at 224; Williams v. United States, 571 A.2d 212, 215 (D.C.1990). We will, however, reverse a trial court's ruling on a matter within its discretion when the trial court, while recognizing its right to exercise discretion, "declines to do so, preferring instead to adhere to a uniform policy...." Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354, 363 (D.C.1979) (citations omitted). When a party has called upon the court for a discretionary ruling, it is improper for the court to refuse to decide the question as a matter of discretion, but instead purport to be bound by a hard and fast rule. See Grow v. Wolcott, 123 Vt. 490, 492, 194 A.2d 403, 404 (1963), cited in Johnson, supra, 398 A.2d at 364. "The discretion called for ... is the exercise of discretion in individual cases, not the discretion of the trial judge to adopt a uniform policy ... in all cases irrespective of circumstances...." United States v. Queen, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 262, 263, 435 F.2d 66, 67 (1970) (footnote omitted), cited with approval in Springs v. United States, 311 A.2d 499, 500 (D.C. 1973).
It is clear from the transcript excerpt quoted above that the trial court recognized that it had discretion to sentence Houston under section 33-541(e). It is equally clear, unfortunately, that the court refused to sentence Houston under section 33-541(e) because it had an established policy of never using that provision when heroin or cocaine was involved ("I don't give 541(e) when people are involved in selling and buying hard drugs, heroin and cocaine"). Adherence to such a uniform policy instead of exercising choice is precisely what this court, in Johnson and Springs, has recognized as an abuse of discretion.
We see no material difference between Springs and this case. In Springs we vacated a sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial judge, in response to a request by defense counsel for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Herring v. United States
...her "usual" reliance on this sentencing practice might constitute impermissible adherence to a uniform policy. See Houston v. United States, 592 A.2d 1066, 1067 (D.C. 1991) (deeming it "improper for the court to refuse to decide [a discretionary] question as a matter of discretion, but inst......
-
Speaks v. U.S.
...finding that the offender would not benefit from treatment under the Federal Youth Corrections Act); Houston v. United States, 592 A.2d 1066 (D.C.1991) (trial court erroneously declined to exercise its discretion, following a uniform policy instead); Coleman v. United States, 123 U.S.App. D......
-
Pernell v. US, 99-CF-153.
...chance." "[T]he decision to sentence under section 33-541(e) ... is entrusted to the trial court's discretion." Houston v. United States, 592 A.2d 1066, 1067 (D.C.1991). However, "[w]e will ... reverse a trial court's ruling on a matter within its discretion when the trial court, while reco......
-
Barbett v. United States, No. 11–CF–362.
...failure or refusal to exercise that judgment is wholly defeating.” (James) Johnson, 398 A.2d at 363.See also Houston v. United States, 592 A.2d 1066, 1067 (D.C.1991) (“We will ... reverse a trial court's ruling on a matter within its discretion when the trial court, while recognizing its ri......