home

The Sentencing of Sergeant Patrick Lett

Update: Here's the cert petition (pdf) filed today, which Prof. Berman quotes from here. They'd also welcome amicus briefs.

A must-read article in the New York Times today about Sgt. Patrick Lett and his cocaine sentencing in Alabama. Law Prof Doug Berman of Sentencing Law and Policy, who is now representing Sgt. Lett pro bono, has lots more.

First, about Sgt. Lett:

Sgt. Patrick Lett, had served 17 years in the Army, including two tours in Iraq, and he had pleaded guilty in federal court to selling cocaine. It was up to Judge William H. Steele, a former marine, to decide how to punish him. “I don’t normally see people standing before me in uniform,” Judge Steele said.

Sergeant Lett’s commanding officer, Capt. Michael Iannuccilli, testified that the man he knew was “a patriot, father and a good man.” “I would gladly deploy to Iraq with him and entrust my life to him,” Captain Iannuccilli said. “I’d trust my soldiers’ lives to him. He’s been nothing but an exemplary soldier.”...

The judge's hands were tied by the mandatory minimum 5 year penalty. He wanted to give Lett as short a sentence as possible. Read below what happened:

A friend of Letts, a law student who studied under Prof. Berman, was in the courtroom for sentencing. He figured out that the Judge could have gotten around the mandatory minimum by applying the safety valve. He wrote the judge and copied the lawyers after the sentencing and told them.

The next day the Judge applied the safety valve under 18 U.S.C. 3553(f) and reduced Lett's sentence to time served -- 11 days. The Government appealed.

In April, a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in New Orleans reversed Judge Steele. The decision was frank in its admiration for a fine soldier and mechanical in its application of the law. The appeals court did not discuss whether Judge Steele had been right to apply the “safety valve,” saying “reasonable arguments can be made on both sides.” Instead, the panel said that the law simply did not allow Judge Steele to revise the sentence once he had imposed it.

True, there is a rule of criminal procedure that allows judges to “correct a sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical or other clear error,” so long as they do it within seven days. Math can be fixed. But since Judge Steele’s mistake was in his understanding of his own power to do justice, the panel said, Sergeant Lett must serve five years.

In other words, the Judge could have sentenced him to time served the day of the sentencing, but not the next day.

Prof. Berman, together with the law firm Jones, Day (also working pro bono) will be filing a petition for writ of cert to the Supreme Court.

< Rendell Makes Out Of Line Remark | Potomac Primaries Open Thread I >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    is anyone else wondering why? (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by chicago dyke on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:00:30 PM EST
    why he thought selling crack would be the thing to do? you don't just wake up one day after years of service and say, "i think i'll try selling drugs." you do it because you have no other options.

    where was his precious military then? why weren't they helping him meet his obligations? it should go both ways. if 'good' military folks and vets aren't allowed to break the law without us calling down the wrath of god on them for "disgracing' the uniform, then the higherups and military planners need to find a way to do without expensive programs like star wars, and spend more on veteran job training and placement and counseling.

    and this former marine agrees: we only get really drunk and beat people and rape women. we keep our bodies pure from the Great Evil of drugs. just ask my former SSgt, oh wait you can't because he's serving a max sentence for raping his own 4 year old daughter. spare me that crap about how "99%" of service people are angels who never sin. and do a little googling on "the military" and "rape" and "domestic violence" and tell me how heroic some of those people, and the ones in uniform who cover for them, must be.

    Nada (none / 0) (#19)
    by SandyK on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:25:45 PM EST
    You sell because it offer quick cash, with little work.

    Joe Schmoo can make over $6/hr at the McDonalds. But he doesn't want to work for it. But selling drugs is nothing but sitting around with a cell, holding, riding around and collecting cash. He gets his cut, all without much work.

    He's not interested in going to college. He wasn't even interested in completing high school. He was interested in easy and fast cash.

    It took a state and federal drug sting to finally get rid of the trash on my street. And I'm glad they did, because now neighbors and their kids can come out of their homes and exercise their freedom without getting shot or worse.

    Drugs are bad new. Legalizing them won't make the misery go away. It'll just hide it from the same folks who think these suckers are victims. It's an insult to all those who are poor who play by the rules, and rise without the handouts and sympathy, too.

    Parent

    You sell it.... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:10:06 AM EST
    because people wanna buy it.  Same as TV's, a bottle of Jack, or a Glock 9mm.  No law can change that...the will of free people is too strong.

    Don't know about you...but when I'm looking for a job I'm looking for the most compensation possible with the least amount of back-breaking.  I'd have moral qualms about selling crack and Glock 9mm's personally, but that's neither here nor there.

    You excercise your freedom, and I'll excercise mine to choose what I put in my body...how about that?  And you keep your chains off the guys who sell me what I want, ok?

    And don't expect the government to keep your kids off drugs, that's your job.  Besides, the govt. hasn't put a dent in drug distribution with their 50 year drug war.

    Parent

    It seems to me (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:30:53 PM EST
      that the "other clear error" prong of Rule 35 should apply here. § 3553(f) states that the district court SHALL sentence without regard to any mandatory minimum where the defendant meets each prong of the five part test* and if the court did not properly apply the law to undisputed facts that is clear error, is it not?

      One thing that would give me pause though would be whether to go forward with a cert petition or go directly to a § 2255 action alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of due process, equal protection etc. because he can't bring a § 2255 until direct appeal is exhausted. this might though be one of the rare cases where ineffective assistance of counsel can be established in the record on appeal. a strong argument can be made that failing to move for the safety valve for a qualifying client is below any minimal standard of competence and it was clearly prejudicial here.

    * (3553 (f) still says pursuant to the guidelines because it was not amended post -Booker but one could argue that must be read in light of Booker and even if not his guidelines sentence was probably significantly less than 5 years which would still make that much of it clear error)

    On the one hand, you have what appears to be a good, honest guy who after 17 years of a respected military career opts out of the service and ends up getting popped for selling crack. I just want to smack him.

    Then on the other hand, you have a legal system with ridiculous and arcane laws that say "You aren't allowed to fix a sentencing mistake." I just want to smack the lawyer that dreamt that up.

    As someone who has no legal training (none / 0) (#3)
    by dannyinla on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:37:38 PM EST
    I often feel like a boy among giants here when you get into legal talk, but thanks for posting this - it's a fascinating story.

    My question is how the heck was the judge not aware of what he could and could not do.

    Here's a lengthy piece of writing on the judge from Jeff Sessions.

    http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=191503

    Your comment's going to get deleted. (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:39:59 PM EST
    You have to link correctly.

    To link, with apologies if it's too basic:

    -highlight the URL of the web-page that you want to link to.

    -copy the URL ("edit" then "copy").

    -come back to TL and write something in your "Comment:" box.

    -highlight the word(s) in that comment that you want to be the link.

    -click the "URL" button above the "Comment:" box, it's the button that has
    an icon that looks like links of a chain. That brings up a link box, and your cursor is automatically in it.

    -hold down the "Ctrl" button on your computer's keyboard and then type "v". That copies the url into the link box.

    -click "OK."

    -click the "Preview" button below the "Comments:" box.

    -if the preview looks good - ie., the word(s) you selected to be the link
    are a different color from the rest of the text - click the "Post" button below the "Comments:" box.

    Parent

    I found the link to the opinion (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM EST
      and I must revise one thing I said, it appears that Lett's guideline range for some of the counts of conviction did exceed 5 yea