The case of Matthew Charles is one that places a great and immutable stain on the federal criminal justice system. That the Sixth Circuit, in a disturbingly glib opinion authored by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, fuels it further and idiotically proposes that the Justice Department, which has labored mightily to get Charles put back in jail and be kept there another ten years, help Charles withe executive clemency, a suggestion utterly untethered by any notion of common sense. See the latest United States v. Charles, August 23, 2018.
Matt Charles was convicted of crack cocaine and gun charges in 1996, which were preceded by some prior convictions. He received a sentence of 35 years, which equals 420 months. He was also determined to be a career offender, a reality that escalated his sentence greatly.
In the years following his initial sentencing and after numerous reports so urging from the United States Sentencing Commission, the federal crack cocaine law was changed to make possession of one ounce of crack cocaine as bad as 500 grams of powder cocaine. This makes no sense since powder cocaine is a precursor - you can't get crack cocaine unless you first have powder cocaine -- to crack cocaine but it is better than the previous ratio of 1:100. Many labored hard for a while to achieve even this modest change in the federal criminal law; I cite my own contribution: Congress Must Fix Inequitable Drug Sentences.
Charles petitioned for a sentence reduction and one was granted in 2014 and he was re-sentenced to merely 24 years 4 months and released not long after. The government -- the Justice Department -- objected and appealed Charles' sentence reduction and he was ordered to go back to jail for another ten years, a development that produced much, well, outrage is a fair word: As He Heads Back to Prison, A Nashville Man Says "Goodbye" to the New Life He Hoped to Build; The Remarkable Rehabilitation of Matthew Charles Makes a Case for Prosecutorial Discretion; He Rebuilt His Life Only to Be Sent Back to Prison.
But really this goes nowhere, and the Sixth Circuit is glib and aloof in rejecting Charles' appeal: (1) the court mocks Charles' argument, stating "under Charles' theory, the limitations applicable to inmates who are eligible for relief would not apply to inmates who are ineligible for relief,"; (2) while admitting that Charles' initial sentence was unconstitutionally imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment, as to whether it poses an injustice the court finds "no such problem." These are just two examples.
The end result is that Charles' sentence, if he had been sentenced constitutionally, would have been not more than 20 years (4 years 4 months less than his reduced sentence that the Sixth Circuit invalidated). The Justice Department, an executive branch as may be recalled, has labored quite mightily in having the Constitution disregarded and Charles put back in jail and for a long while. Notwithstanding this reality and while extolling Charles' "extraordinary record" and "good works" suggests that Charles should seek executive clemency. In other words, now that the Sixth Circuit has blessed and ratified Charles' jailers efforts to get him back in jail for another 10 years, he should ask the jailer to agree to let him out. Right, Judge Sutton.
Turn, turn, turn again:
Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com
Comments