U.S. v. Brooks, 89-10542
| Decision Date | 01 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-10542,89-10542 |
| Citation | 915 F.2d 1581 |
| Parties | Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Craig Edward BROOKS, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, and JAMES R. BROWNING and RYMER, Circuit Judges
The government appeals the district court's reduction of Craig Edward Brooks' sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 on the grounds that an eleven-month delay deprived the district court of jurisdiction and that the district court erred in holding the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine unconstitutional as applied to Brooks. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. We vacate the sentence and remand.
The determination whether the district court retained jurisdiction to consider a Rule 35(b) sentence reduction motion despite its eleven-month delay is unnecessary because the court lacks authority to reduce a legal sentence below the statutory minimum. United States v. Sharp, 883 F.2d 829 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam). If the sentence is illegal, however, the district court retains jurisdiction to correct it under Rule 35(a) at any time. Fed.R.Crim.P. 35. 1
A district court's determination that the minimum mandatory penalties prescribed under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(b) constitute cruel and unusual punishment is reviewed de novo. United States v. Savinovich, 845 F.2d 834, 839 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 943, 109 S.Ct. 369, 102 L.Ed.2d 358 (1988). A criminal sentence may be overturned on eighth amendment grounds only if it is "grossly disproportionate to the offense committed." United States v. Busher, 817 F.2d 1409, 1415 (9th Cir.1987) (emphasis in original). In Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290-91, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 3009-10, 77 L.Ed.2d 637, 649-50 (1983), the Court held that objective criteria should guide an eighth amendment proportionality analysis, including:
(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.
Id. at 292, 103 S.Ct. at 3011, 77 L.Ed.2d at 650.
Congress considers possession with intent to distribute a kilogram of cocaine such a grave offense that mandatory minimum penalties are a necessary deterrent. Savinovich, 845 F.2d at 840. When reviewing sentences under the eighth amendment, we must give "substantial deference to the broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess in determining the types and limits of punishments for crimes." Solem, 463 U.S. at 290, 103 S.Ct. at 3009, 77 L.Ed.2d at 649. Brooks committed a grave offense--possession with intent to distribute a kilogram of cocaine--to which he voluntarily pled guilty.
The harshness of the penalty is also viewed objectively. See United States v. Kidder, 869 F.2d 1328, 1333-34 n. 6 (9th Cir.1989) (). Judge Vukasin based his conclusion that Brooks' punishment was too harsh primarily on his belief in Brooks' rehabilitation, Brooks' non-criminal background, and personal losses suffered by Brooks' wife and child while Brooks remained in jail. See ER at 92-93, 110-22. However moving these considerations may be, they are not wholly objective, nor do they outweigh Congress' determination of the gravity of the offense.
A comparison of Brooks' sentence with punishments imposed for other crimes satisfies the second and third Solem criteria. See Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 102 S.Ct. 703, 70 L.Ed.2d 556 (1982) (per curiam) (); United States v. Klein, 860 F.2d 1489, 1497 (9th Cir.1988) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial