Monday, January 09, 2023

Court Could Consider Benefits of Plea Bargain When Resolving Compassionate Release Request

US v. Bond: After a series of robberies in 2015, Bond was charged with multiple counts of Hobbs Act robbery that would have resulted in an advisory Guideline range of more than 1000 months in prison. He wound up pleading guilty to two counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence and was sentenced to 84 months on one and 300 months on the other as the result of the “stacking” providing then in force. Ultimately, Bond moved for compassionate release based on the First Step Act’s changes to the stacking provisions. While the district court agreed that the change in the law constituted “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for relief, it ultimately denied Bond’s motion after weighing the relevant sentencing factors. One of those factors was that the district court would not “disregard the dismissed counts and the benefits” Bond got from the plea agreement, concluding that Bond got “the exact sentence bargained for.”

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Bond’s motion for compassionate release. The court rejected Bond’s argument that the district court erred by considering the plea agreement amongst the applicable sentencing factors. It also rejected Bond’s attempts to rely on the First Step Act’s change in the stacking provisions, noting that “timing matters” and that his sentence “was properly calculated when imposed.” At any rate, the ultimate issue in compassionate release was not whether the original sentence was correct, but whether the sentencing factors counseled for or against a reduction given new, extraordinary circumstances.

No comments: