Fourth Circuit rules that troops should not be honored too much at sentencing
Thanks to this effective article in the Baltimore Sun, I see the Fourth Circuit last week in an unpublished opinion, US v. Medina, No. 05-5165 (4th Cir. Mar. 21, 2007) (available here), declared unreasonable a district court’s decision to rely heavily on military service to justify a below-guideline sentence. Here are the basics from the Sun article:
After Jose Medina Jr. served 18 years in the Army, a federal judge in Baltimore wanted to honor his patriotism even after the war veteran committed a crime. Medina, a federal civil employee from Aberdeen, was caught with child pornography on his work computer in 2004 and later pleaded guilty to a single charge of possessing 10 images.
At his sentencing, the judge credited Medina substantially for his military service and imposed prison time well below recommended guidelines. “I start with the understanding that vets should get a break,” U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles Jr. said before sentencing Medina to one year plus a day behind bars.
Last week, an appeals court disagreed. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., sided with prosecutors in ruling that Quarles had been too lenient when the judge gave too much weight to one factor — Medina’s military record. The judge, the panel decided, violated the principle of a “reasonable” sentencing and ordered the case back for resentencing using the recommended guidelines of about 3 1/2 to less than five years in prison. The case illustrates a still-simmering, two-year-old debate in the federal judiciary over how much discretion individual judges should have in crafting sentences.
As noted in posts below, I have long thought and argued that if prior bad behavior (in the form of criminal history) produces significant sentence increases, then prior good behavior (in the form of distinguished military service) ought sometimes serve as a proper ground for a significant sentence decrease. Apparently the Fourth Circuit does not think troops should be honored this way, although making the Medina decision “unpublished” perhaps suggests that the court does not feel strongly about this matter.
Among the disturbing aspects of Medina is the decision to render this opinion while Claiborne and Rita are pending. Both Claiborne and Rita raise issues pertinent to the Medina disposition. Indeed, if Jose Medina seeks cert, I would expect SCOTUS to GVR the case after it decides Claiborne and Rita.
Some related posts on military service as a sentencing factor: