W.V. Drug Sentence Reduced After Supreme Court Ruling
U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, reduced the sentence of a West Virginia man who conspired to make methamphetamine. The sentence was cut from 20 years to one year in prison, the Charleston Gazette reported July 1.
Goodwin ruled that the Supreme Court decision regarding sentencing rules in Washington state also apply to federal sentencing guidelines nationally. The Supreme Court said a jury, not judges, must determine whether additional prison time should be added to an offender's sentence.
In West Virginia, judges have the discretion to sentence offenders to prison based on the minimum and maximum terms set by the state legislature. Federal sentencing guidelines allow federal judges to go beyond the maximum sentences depending on the “relevant conduct” of the offender. Relevant conduct can include having a prior criminal record, the use of a gun while committing a crime, or possessing a certain amount of drugs.
In the case of Ronald Shamblin, Goodwin said the amount of relevant conduct was so “off the charts” that it increased Shamblin's sentence from the minimum of six months to the maximum of 20 years.
But following the Supreme Court ruling, Goodwin agreed with a request from Shamblin's lawyer to reduce the sentence. Goodwin ruled that based on the Supreme Court decision, Shamblin's sentence was unconstitutional because the relevant conduct was not put before a jury.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Chad Noel objected to Goodwin's ruling, arguing that the Supreme Court decision doesn't apply to the federal court system. He also said that a jury should hear the relevant-conduct evidence now, rather than simply reducing Shamblin's sentence.
The U.S. Justice Department is being consulted regarding the case, and an appeal of Goodwin's ruling may be forthcoming. The Justice Department is also expected to issue instructions to local U.S. attorneys on how to deal with the implications of the Supreme Court ruling.
