Fascinating compassionate release ruling based on clear sentencing error without other means of remedy
Regular readers are likely familiar with many of my (pre-COVID) prior posts making much of the provision of the FIRST STEP Act allowing federal courts to directly reduce sentences under the (so-called compassionate release) statutory provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) without awaiting a motion by the Bureau of Prisons. I have long considered this provision a big deal because, if applied appropriately and robustly, it could and should enable many hundreds (and perhaps many thousands) of federal prisoners to have excessive prison sentences reduced on a variety of grounds. A helpful reader alerted me to an especially interesting example of the granting of a sentencing reduction in US v. Trenkler, Cr. No. 92-10369 (D. Mass. May 6, 2021) (available for download below).
Trenkler is a fascinating case and opinion for many reasons, and the discussion of the case particulars and compassionate release jurisprudence more generally make Trenkler a must-read for anyone working in this space. Here are some small snippets from the start and heart of the 50+ page opinion to encourage downloads:
Defendant Alfred Trenkler is a sixty-five-year-old federal inmate serving a life sentence for convictions stemming from his role in an October 28, 1991 bombing in Roslindale, Massachusetts that killed one Boston Police Department Bomb Squad officer and maimed a second officer. On November 29, 1993, a jury convicted Trenkler of illegal receipt and use of explosive materials and attempted malicious destruction of property by means of explosives, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(d), 844(i) (Counts 2 and 3), and conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count 1). See Jury Verdict, ECF No. 487. Trenkler is currently incarcerated at the U.S. Penitentiary in Tucson, Arizona (“USP Tucson”). Defendant moves for compassionate release, asserting that extraordinary and compelling circumstances warrant his release based on (1) the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in light of his documented heart condition and the outbreak that has left at least 1009 inmates infected with COVID-19 over the past year at USP Tucson; and (2) what Trenkler characterizes as a series of miscarriages of justice that call into question his convictions and sentence…. The Court reduces Trenkler’s sentence to a term of 41 years, followed by a term of supervised release of 3 years…
In addition to the risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, Trenkler urges the Court to reduce his sentence to time served in light of the “unique circumstances” surrounding his case. Those unique circumstances, in Trenkler’s view, include questions surrounding his guilt and the fundamental unfairness of his conviction; the disproportionality of his sentence as compared to Shay, Jr.’s sentence; and his unlawfully imposed life sentence.
[Despite limits in AEDPA concerning habeas petitions,] now Congress has spoken again [via the FIRST STEP Act]. And this time it has given trial judges broad authority — indeed it has imposed a statutory duty, upon a defendant’s motion — to conduct an individualized review of the defendant’s case for extraordinary and compelling circumstances that call out for correction…. [A series of discussed] cases — and others like them — leave no question that this Court may conclude that a legal error at sentencing constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason, and reduce the sentence after conducting an individualized review of the case….
Here, it is both extraordinary and compelling that (1) a judge sentenced a defendant to life imprisonment using a preponderance of the evidence standard where the controlling statute provided that a life sentence could be imposed only by the jury; and (2) there exists no available avenue for relief from this legal error.