Crack guidelines and Equal Protection
October 5, 2009 by Marshall A. Mintz · Leave a Comment
In an unpublished Summary Order, the Second Circuit said, yet again, that the 100-to-1 powder to crack cocaine ratio employed by the Sentencing Guidelines does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it is rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest of protecting the public against the greater dangers of crack. Citing, e.g., United States v. Stevens, 19 F.3d 93, 26 97 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[W]e join six other circuits that have similarly held that the Guidelines’ 100 to 1 ratio of powder cocaine to crack cocaine has a rational basis and does not violate equal protection principles.”); United States v. Samas, 561 F.3d 108, 110 (2d Cir. 2009); United States v. Lee, 523 F.3d 104, 106 (2d Cir. 2008) (“It is not apparent to us that the principles set forth in Kimbrough [v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007)] have any application to mandatory minimum sentences imposed by statute.”)
What does this mean? Nothing new. This argument has been made and rejected for years. The real battle now is over revising the Guidelines to use a 1:1 ratio and getting rid of mandatory minimum sentences.
NY Court of Appeals – People v. Quinones
March 30, 2009 by Marshall A. Mintz · Leave a Comment
In People v. Quinones, which can be found by clicking here, the New York State Court of Appeals again upheld the constitutionality of the discretionary persistent felony offender sentencing scheme. The Court again explained that under New York’s scheme, a defendant is subject to an enhanced sentence based solely on the existence of two prior felony convictions – which places New York’s scheme outside the scope of Apprendi. Another distinguishing feature of New York’s sentencing scheme is that it is only after a defendant’s eligibility for an enhanced sentence is determined that a judge is given the discretion to choose the appropriate sentence within a sentencing range prescribed by statute. Notably, the Court made no mention of the recent Federal Court decisions finding the statute unconstitutional.