holding that a sentence of 188 months of imprisonment was not "grossly disproportionate" to the crime of manufacturing 100 or more marijuana plants, considering the gravity of the offense and the fact that the penalty imposed was both at the minimum of the Guideline range and well below the statutory maximum
How later courts described this case
- holding that a sentence of 188 months of imprisonment was not "grossly disproportionate" to the crime of manufacturing 100 or more marijuana plants, considering the gravity of the offense and the fact that the penalty imposed was both at the minimum of the Guideline range and well below the statutory maximum
- holding that unless a district court’s refusal to depart downward is based on its conclusion that it lacks the authority to depart, this court lacks jurisdiction to review a district court’s decision not to depart downward
- upholding conviction based on jury finding that the defendant was guilty of manufacturing 100 or more plants, although the jury was not instructed to determine the exact amount
- finding no Apprendi error when jury returned a guilty verdict after being instructed on only a threshold quantity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOONAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides, inter alia: “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The policy perceptible beneath this provision is the unfairness of the government making a person risk punishment again for the same offense after he or she has stood trial or its equivalent and escaped punishment. Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187 , 78 S.Ct. 221 , 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957). The amendment also protects against “a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction” and against “multiple punishments for the same. offense.” Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). It constitutes “ ‘a constitutional policy of finality for the defendant’s benefit.’ ” Id., quoting United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 , 91 S.Ct. 547 , 27 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971).
When Toby Patterson pleaded guilty to the crime of growing marijuana, he had not escaped punishment for growing 100 or more marijuana plants; rather, he was exposed to the risk that the court would so find; and the court presumably would have so found if a misreading of Apprendi had not led to rejection of the plea and a jury finding the number. Toby Patterson, therefore, was not twice put in jeopardy of his life, limbs, or any definite period of incarceration. He has not been subjected to a second prosecution nor punished multiple times for the same offense or deprived of any assurance of finality as to what his punishment would be. I, therefore, concur in his sentence and in the other parts of Judge Tallman’s opinion.