US v. Skaggs: Skaggs was convicted of possessing and conspiring to possess meth with the intent to distribute it. The normal statutory sentence of 10 years to life was increased to 15 years due to what the Government labeled a "serious drug felony," a prior conviction for drug distribution in Virginia that resulted in a 26-month sentence. Skaggs objected, arguing that the 26-month sentence was one of six concurrent 26-month sentences imposed at the same time and that the sentence length had to be equally divided among those sentences. As a result, no individual sentence was longer than 12 months, the threshold for a serious drug felony. The district court disagreed and a sentenced Skaggs to serve the mandatory minimum term of 180 months in prison.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Skaggs' sentence. It concluded that "Skaggs' novel theory cannot be reconciled with fundamental tenets of sentencing law, under which concurrent sentences remain separate and distinct terms of imprisonment even though they are served simultaneously." Skaggs was sentenced not to a single 26-month term spread across multiple counts, but to multiple 26-month sentences. The court reserved for another time how the actual time served by a defendant might affect the analysis (if, say a 13-month sentence led, after good-time credits, to only 11 months being served), as "Skaggs is not such a defendant."
No comments:
Post a Comment