April 7, 2005
Did Cianci receive special consideration from the 1st Circuit?
As first noted here last night, the First Circuit has remanded for resentencing under Booker the sentence of former Providence Mayor Vincent "Buddy" Cianci and his associates (see news account here). I have been sent the full ruling (cut and pasted from the docket sheet):
4/5/05 ORDER entered by Judge Jeffrey R. Howard, Senior Judge Levin H. Campbell, and Senior Judge Norman H. Stahl. After consideration of the supplemental briefs filed by the parties, we vacate the sentences of the three defendants, Vincent A. Cianci, Jr., Frank E. Corrente, and Richard E. Autiello, and remand the action to the district court for resentencing pursuant to United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We intimate no view as to what sentences should be imposed on remand. So ordered.
Apparently there is no opinion forthcoming. This outcome seems most peculiar since it seems Cianci and his associated did not raise Apprendi/Blakely issues at their (pre-Blakely) sentencings, and thus would need to establish plain error to get a remand. And, recall, that the First Circuit applies the tough plain error standard that requires the defendant to establish prejudice.
Though I have not seen the supplemental Booker briefs filed by the defendants in this case, the government's supplemental Booker brief suggests that prejudice was not a given on the facts of the case. I have a copy of the government's supplemental Booker brief (which, of course, failed to carry the day) available for download below.
April 7, 2005 at 03:25 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Did Cianci receive special consideration from the 1st Circuit?:
Tracked on Apr 7, 2005 6:36:35 PM
Professor, I am a defendant/petitioner/released inmate who recently got a favourable decision in the Fla. S. Ct. "debtors' prison" case. Now on remand the sentencing court https://www.browardclerk.org/Web2/CaseSearch/Details/?caseid=Mjg5ODUwMw%3d%3d-79qs2zxAphs%3d&caseNum=07009128CF10A&category=CR
successor judge is urged by state to treat order to resentence me as moot as I did serve 10 yr. (85%) sentence and five months into 10 yr. probationary portion of 20 yr. split sentence (That's how much time one gets in Fla. for winning acquittal by jury of substantive RICO and found guilty of conspiracy where the only proof presented at trial was the completed act which jury did not find against defendant--failed motion to vacate; going back for belated direct appeal).
Is there any chance you might know--off hand--WHETHER SENTENCING JUDGE ON REMAND SHOULD REDUCE PROBATION PROPORTIONALLY AGAINST TIME ALREADY SERVED IN PRISON?
It would be really nice to hear from you, Professor.
Posted by: Jean-Claude Noel | Oct 14, 2016 12:56:15 PM