reiterating the constitutional requirement to be advised of appellate rights, including the right to counsel on appeal
How later courts described this case
- reiterating the constitutional requirement to be advised of appellate rights, including the right to counsel on appeal
- record showed that appellant was “apparently a willing participant in the operation to smuggle drugs to Philadelphia from Aruba” as opposed to the “classic example of a courier . . . who was enticed, coerced, or exploited by an affluent, sophisticated drug dealer”
- “Presumably, these [appellate] rights are worthless to a defendant who does not know they are available to him. The advice is necessary to guarantee that poverty does not make it more difficult for an indigent convicted defendant to engage the appellate process than for a convicted defendant with money”
- noting that the government did not challenge the finding that the two burglaries were one offense
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONTIE, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Although I am compelled to concur in the result in this case, I do so with great reluctance. The facts simply state that a good Samaritan saw the defendant slumped over in a car in a parking lot of a shopping area and contacted an officer to provide assistance to the defendant. The officer found the defendant had fallen asleep and found in the car a can of beer and several hand guns in a bag. The firearms possession was illegal because the defendant was a felon whose prior convictions occurred in 1967 and 1979. There was no underlying crime in regard to his possession of the firearms. The firearms were not possessed in conjunction with any criminal act.
The statute provides that Mr. Aloi must be sentenced to a mandatory 15 years in prison. There is no provision in Title 18 U.S.C. § 924 (e)(1) for reduction of a sentence where the current possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is not in conjunction with an underlying crime. There is no question that Mr. Aloi committed the crime of illegal possession of firearms when he had a felony record.
The fault I find is in the severity of the mandatory sentence, which I find unconscionable. My complaint is with the statute which fails to leave a window open for non-severe violations, but instead imposes a harsh mandatory sentence. I cannot feel proud of my concurrence to this harsh sentence which is mandated by the statute. I cannot feel confident that I am truly administering justice by my approval of the decision of the majority. I further hope that we are not sending wrong signals to good Samaritans.
The mandatory minimum sentences, which have been enacted in statutes by Congress and have been directed by the sentencing guidelines in other situations, were obviously created with the idealistic principle to impose more harsh sentences on repeat offenders, but the idealistic concept has created some situations where the sentences are unconscionable, unrealistic, and unjustified. An individual, whose prior felonies occurred 14 and 26 years ago, who illegally possessed several handguns and did not commit any underlying crime, should not be sentenced to a mandatory 15 years. However, I cannot ignore the mandatory provisions of Title 18 U.S.C. § 924 , but I cannot convince myself that our determination is in conformity with the principles of fair and proper administration of justice.