US v. Hatchett, Crim. No. A-89-CR-81.
| Decision Date | 29 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. A-89-CR-81. |
| Citation | 765 F. Supp. 349 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Saxon Hugh HATCHETT, John Edward Soto, Rafael Soto, Simon Soto. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Mark Marshall, U.S. Atty.'s Office, Austin, Tex., for plaintiff U.S.
Bill Willms, Small, Craig & Werkenthin, Austin, Tex., for defendant Saxon Hugh Hatchett.
Gary Zausmer, Bankston, Wright & Greenhill, Austin, Tex., for defendant John Edward Soto.
Connie Kelley, Austin, Tex., for defendant Rafael Soto.
David Deaderick, Tulk & Deaderick, Austin, Tex., for defendant Simon Soto.
On May 29, 1991 all defendants in this cause came on for resentencing in light of the Fifth Circuit's opinion, 923 F.2d 369, issued as mandate February 21, 1991. While this Court's calculation of the various sentencing guideline ranges and rulings on objections to the presentence investigation report were in all things affirmed as to each defendant, the Circuit remanded this cause for resentencing finding this Court may have impermissibly taken socioeconomic considerations into account in determining where these defendants should be sentenced within their respective guideline ranges. In so doing, the appellate court held that sentencing courts are unconditionally forbidden from considering socioeconomic factors when sentencing an individual defendant under the guidelines.
In the nine years since the undersigned has been acting as the presiding judge for the Austin Division of this judicial district, nothing has been more profoundly difficult than imposing sentence on people convicted of criminal offenses. One would think that after conducting more than a thousand sentencing hearings, an individual judge would be able to ignore the individual defendant and consider only the offense charged in determining the term of imprisonment or other penalty to be imposed. In its own wisdom, Congress presumed that such judicial indifference could be standardized by passing the sentencing guidelines — guidelines that are premised, in part, on the proposition that federal courts should sentence offenses not offenders, imploring the sentencing judge to look at a criminal defendant, not as an individual, but as a person who has been convicted of a specific offense, justifying the sentence to be imposed by looking almost exclusively to that offense.
Ironically, it is the experience of this judge after having determined the fate of countless criminal defendants that what often makes this task of sentencing both bearable and meaningful is remaining mindful that it is not an incarnate offense that stands before this Court at sentencing but a fellow citizen. Before the Guidelines, this Court could express its concern for such a person by lecturing that individual defendant in the hope that it might spark rehabilitation, as well as remind the community as a whole that criminal activity is destructive and can ruin lives. This might not seem like much, a few offhand remarks from the bench, but this ability to infuse some human quality into the sentencing...
To continue reading
Request your trial