Is Your Probation Officer Exceeding His or Her Authority?

        When a person is placed on probation in Florida, the sentencing judge orders the person being placed on probation (the probationer) to complete certain conditions; he also orders the probation office to monitor the probationer's progress.  As long as the probation officer is simply supervising a specific, judge-ordered condition of probation, all is well.  However, problems arise whenever a judge delegates authority to a probation officer to impose what amounts to additional conditions of probation.

        That is precisely what occurred in the case of Carter v. State of Florida.  In that particular case, the judge ordered the following:  "As directed by your Officer, you will enroll in, regularly attend, and successfully complete, such programs as are reasonably related to your past and future criminality, or the rehabilitative purposes of probation; including but not limited to alcohol and drug treatment and counseling, mental health counseling, vocation and education courses, rehabilitation programs, evaluation and therapy."

        On appeal, Mr. Carter successfully argued that allowing his probation officer to select the appropriate rehabilitative programs he should attend amounted to an improper delegation of authority by the judge to the probation officer.  In agreeing with him, the appellate court stated that the judge "[did] not simply grant to the probation officer authority to supervise or direct a specific condition of probation . . . .  Rather, [the judge allowed] the probation officer to actually impose a wide variety of programs related to rehabilitation . . . ."

        If you are on probation and believe that your probation officer is exceeding his or her authority, you may need to consult a criminal-defense attorney in order to find out whether or not you are correct.  If you are, in fact, correct, your lawyer will probably have to file a motion with the court asking the judge to modify the illegal condition of probation.

Crack Cocaine Amendment to be Applied Retroactively

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal guidelines on sentencing for cocaine violations are advisory only, rejecting a lower court ruling that they are effectively mandatory. Judges must consider the Guideline range for a cocaine violation, the Court said, but may conclude that they are too harsh when considering the disparity between punishment for crack cocaine and cocaine in powder form.

In still another recent development, the United States Sentencing Commission unanimously voted today to give retroactive effect to a recent amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that reduces penalties for crack cocaine offenses. Retroactivity of the crack cocaine amendment will become effective on March 3, 2008. Not every crack cocaine offender will be eligible for a lower sentence under the decision. A Federal sentencing judge will make the final determination of whether an offender is eligible for a lower sentence and how much that sentence should be lowered. That determination will be made only after consideration of many factors, including the Commission’s direction to consider whether lowering the offender’s sentence would pose a danger to public safety. In addition, the overall impact is anticipated to occur incrementally over approximately 30 years, due to the limited nature of the guideline amendment and the fact that many crack cocaine offenders will still be required under Federal law to serve mandatory five- or ten-year sentences because of the amount of crack involved in their offense.

For the last several years, numerous groups and individuals have been saying that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are too severe when it comes to penalties for crack cocaine offenses.  It looks as if those who have been advocating this position are finally being heard.

Florida drug offense lawyer Ronald Chapman has been representing people accused of committing drug crimes in Florida since 1990. You can read more about Mr. Chapman’s experience as a Florida drug offense attorney as well as review news articles about some of his cases.  Some of the types of cases and issues that Mr. Chapman has handled since 1990 include:

Death Penalty Cases
Assault and Battery Cases
DUI Cases
Drug Cases
Sex Cases
Sealing & Expunging Criminal Records
Bond|Bail
Mistaken Identification and Wrongful Conviction
Police Interrogations
Sentencing

Disparity in Sentencing for Crack Cocaine Offenders: the U.S. Supreme Court Speaks

I previously authored a post entitled "Disparity in Sentencing and Crack Cocaine."  Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed this same issue in two different cases.  The result was a resounding win for both defendants. 

In his blog entitled "Sentencing Law and Policy," Professor Douglas A. Berman summarizes the two cases as follows:

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the federal guidelines on sentencing for cocaine violations are advisory only, rejecting a lower court ruling that they are effectively mandatory. Judges must consider the Guideline range for a cocaine violation, the Court said, but may conclude that they are too harsh when considering the disparity between punishment for crack cocaine and cocaine in powder form. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the decision in Kimbrough v. U.S. (06-6330)....

Ruling in a second Guidelines case, Gall v. U.S. (06-7949), the Court — also by a 7-2 vote — cleared the way for judges to impose sentences below the specified range and still have such punishment regarded as “reasonable.” The Justices, in an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, told federal appeals courts to use a “deferential abuse-of-discretion standard” even when a trial sets sets a punishment below the range. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., announced the opinion in Stevens’ absence.

Florida drug offense lawyer Ronald Chapman has been representing people accused of committing drug crimes in Florida since 1990.  You can read more about Mr. Chapman’s experience as a Florida drug offense attorney as well as review news articles about some of his cases.  Some of the types of cases and issues that Mr. Chapman has handled since 1990 include:

Death Penalty Cases
Assault and Battery Cases
DUI Cases
Drug Cases
Sex Crimes Cases
Sealing & Expunging Criminal Records
Bond|Bail
Mistaken Identification and Wrongful Conviction
Police Interrogations
Sentencing

Disparity in Sentencing and Crack Cocaine

In a previous blog posting, I argued for rationality in sentencing given the widespread problem of prisoner overcrowding in the United States generally and in Florida particularly.  After publishing that posting, I came upon an article that appears on the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' website.  That article points out the disparity in sentencing between those convicted of crack cocaine offenses versus those convicted of powder cocaine offenses has been well known for years.  The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case that dealt with this disparity.  Will the high court do anything to correct this unjust disparity in sentencing?  We can only hope.

Florida drug offense attorney Ronald Chapman has been representing people accused of committing drug crimes in Florida since 1990. You can read more about Mr. Chapman’s experience as a Florida drug offense lawyer as well as review news articles about some of his cases.  Some of the types of cases and issues that Mr. Chapman has handled include:

Death Penalty Cases
Assault and Battery Cases
DUI Cases
Drug Cases
Sex Cases
Sealing & Expunging Criminal Records
Bond|Bail
Mistaken Identification and Wrongful Conviction
Police Interrogations
Sentencing