United States v. D.M.
| Decision Date | 03 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–CR–170.,12–CR–170. |
| Citation | 942 F.Supp.2d 327 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, v. D.M., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Loretta E. Lynch, Esq., United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York by Hilary L. Jager, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, for Government.
David M. Chidekel, Esq., New York, NY, for Defendant.
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM, HEARING AND ORDER
I. Introduction
This case illustrates the sensible cooperation of prosecutor, defense, experts and the court to save rather than destroy an adolescent found to have used his computer to view child pornography.
This defendant, D.M., was originally charged with receiving and possessing child pornography, requiring a minimum prison sentence of five years. Following a guilty plea, at a hearing on March 22, 2013, defendant, now age 22, was sentenced for one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Imposed was a non-Guidelines sentence of five years' probation with substantial continuing controls and treatment. See Part V.D, infra (outlining specifics of sentence). The reasons for the sentence were orally explained in open court. They are elaborated upon in this memorandum.
Defendant admits to having possessed several hundred still images and video files of children engaging in sexually explicit conduct. When he was an adolescent, he obtained them from the Internet on his home computers. His treating therapists and the parties' experts are in agreement with the court that he suffers from a treatable pornography obsession that began in his early teenage years. There was no evidence that the defendant produced any such materials.
Apart from using a computer, defendant has never acted out against a child or anyone else. Demonstrated by convincing evidence is that he poses no current or future risk to any child or adult. Since his collection of child pornography was discovered by the government, defendant has undergone nearly two years of successful therapeutic treatment. Expert witnesses presented by both the government and defendant recommend that this treatment continue in a non-incarceratory environment and that a term of imprisonment is not required to avoid any danger to the public. Defendant is found by the experts to be fully capable of utilizing therapeutic treatment while under strict control of the court's Probation Department. See Part III.B., infra.
The crime is serious. Punishment is required. Defendant's guilty plea will result in the stain of a federal felony conviction for a sex-related crime. Extensive restrictions affecting where he can live and work, and how he will be controlled, will follow him for many years.
Having been convicted of a crime of possession—and not production, receipt or distribution—of child pornography, no statutory mandatory term of imprisonment is required. Outside the ambit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. R.V.
...United States v. C.R., 972 F.Supp.2d 457, 459 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (problems with enforcing statutory minimums); United States v. D.M., 942 F.Supp.2d 327 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (sentencing defendant who pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography to five years' probation); United States v......
-
United States v. E.L.
...(same); United States v. Florez Parra , No. 14–CR–332, 2015 WL 105885, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2015) (same); United States v. D.M. , 942 F.Supp.2d 327, 352 (E.D.N.Y.2013) (sentencing defendant who pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography to five years' probation); R.V. , ......
-
United States v. Austin
...it recommends." United States v. Diaz, 720 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1041 (E.D. Wis. 2010) (collecting cases); see also United States v. D.M., 942 F.Supp.2d 327, 351 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (collecting authority for the proposition that child pornography Guidelines are entitled to little deference). That sai......
-
State v. Riggleman
...to the community. Of critical importance is the availability of effective sex offender treatment. See generally, United States v. D.M., 942 F.Supp.2d 327, 334 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) ("Particularly useful at sentencing ... is expert testimony. The evaluation of experts in the fields of psychology, ......