The American Bar Association (ABA) has recently filed an amicus brief in support of a defendant named Efrain Lora, who is challenging his sentence for his role in a murder related to drug trafficking. The ABA supports Lora’s argument that federal criminal statutes do not require a defendant to be sentenced to mandatory consecutive sentences in this case. The ABA cites its Criminal Justice Standards and a report from the Justice Kennedy Commission as the basis for this argument.
Lora was found guilty under 18 U.S. Code Section 924(j) and Section 924(c) in 2016. The latter section contains a provision prohibiting concurrent sentencing, but Lora argues that his conviction and sentencing did not trigger it under Section 924(j). The ABA agrees with Lora’s statutory construction and believes it leads to a moral outcome.
The Criminal Justice Standards, first developed in 1964, have been quoted or cited in over 120 Supreme Court opinions and more than 2,400 state supreme court opinions. After then-Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke about criminal punishment at the ABA’s 2003 annual meeting, the ABA formed the Justice Kennedy Commission. The ABA’s House of Delegates adopted the commission’s report and recommendations the following year.
In its brief, the ABA states that the consecutive sentence imposed on Lora represents a form of mandatory minimum sentencing disfavored by the Criminal Justice Standards and the Justice Kennedy Commission report. This disapproval stems from a concern that mandatory minimums limit the trial court’s discretion and shift discretion to the prosecutor. The ABA argues that requiring sentences for multiple offenses consecutively would endorse a mandatory minimum sentence and go against the policy of allowing judges to exercise sentencing discretion in individual cases.
Take the first step towards finding your dream legal job – sign up for LawCrossing today.
The ABA also argues that the Criminal Justice Standards favor judicial sentencing discretion, including the imposition of concurrent sentences in cases. In citing the standards, the ABA states that the sentencing function “should be the work of the courts, authorized by the legislature ‘to exercise substantial discretion to determine sentences in accordance with the gravity of offenses and the degree of culpability of particular offenders.'”
The federal circuits are split on the issue presented in Lora v. United States. While the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Denver has allowed concurrent sentences under Section 924(j), the 2nd Circuit in New York and others have required that sentences be served consecutively. Oral arguments have not been scheduled in the case, and the brief was filed pro bono on behalf of the ABA by Mary-Christine Sungaila of the Complex Appellate Litigation Group in Newport Beach, California.
In conclusion, the ABA supports the defendant’s argument that federal criminal statutes do not require a defendant to be sentenced to mandatory consecutive sentences in this case. The ABA cites its Criminal Justice Standards and the Justice Kennedy Commission report as the basis for this argument and believes that the consecutive sentence imposed on the defendant represents a form of mandatory minimum sentencing, which is disfavored by these standards.
REFERENCES:
Judicial discretion should be upheld in case involving sentencing standards, ABA says in amicus brief