Sentencing-Rehabilitation

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Delvarez Long

Case No.: 22-2275

Officials: Wood, Hamilton, and Kirsch, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sentencing-Rehabilitation

Long was arrested for domestic battery, during which the police discovered he was carrying a stolen firearm in his waistband and cocaine in plain sight. Long subsequently entered a guilty plea under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) for the unlawful possession of a firearm due to his felon status. According to his guideline range, he could expect a sentence ranging from 33 to 41 months.

However, the court indicated its intention to hand down a 51-month sentence along with three years of supervised release, during which Long would be subjected to drug testing and treatment. The court’s decision was influenced by Long’s extensive criminal history, including four felony convictions and several others. The court felt that the guideline calculation did not adequately capture the gravity of Long’s criminal past. Notably, the court expressed serious concerns about Long’s history of domestic violence and his apparent lack of rehabilitation progress despite previous interventions such as probation, parole, supervision, and various forms of confinement.

The court underscored that Long had openly acknowledged his drug addiction and sought treatment. Furthermore, it was highlighted that he owed a substantial amount of child support, and his work experience was limited. The court concluded by mentioning a desire for Long to spend sufficient time in prison to participate in vocational programs and develop job-related skills. Interestingly, no objections were raised by either party in response to these considerations.

Long contested the court’s decision, arguing that the imposition of the sentence was a plain error because it was, in part, intended to rehabilitate him, contravening 18 U.S.C. 3582(a) as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the “Tapia” case of 2011. In response, the Seventh Circuit upheld the ruling, affirming that while rehabilitation is a significant factor in many sentencing decisions, the “Tapia” decision permits judges to discuss rehabilitation as long as it doesn’t become the primary basis for the sentence. In this case, the record did not demonstrate a clear error under the standards set by the “Tapia” decision

Affirmed.

Decided 08/22/23

Full Text