Question about the Hammond case

[Ms. Yertle]

I've done a little reading and found out that the Hammonds were sentenced a couple of years ago and served their sentences. How is it then legal for the court to re-sentence them?

[MohRokTah]

1. They were illegally released early.

There was a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years and the judge gave one 1 year and the other 4 months.

Judges have no leeway in mandatory minimum sentences. Both men had to serve a minimum if 5 years with no parole possible under the law. They did not, thus they had to return to prison to finish out their mandatory minimum sentences.

[Snobblevitch]

2. It was a feseral case and a federal judge decided

after they served their time that ther sentences were not as long as they should have been under federal sentencing guidelines.

My question is, was it the judge who decided to look into this on his own? If not, how did it happen?

[jberryhill]

6. It happened on appeal

And the Hammonds were fully represented.

http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammonds%20Appeal%209th%20district%20court.pdf

Turning now to the merits, we hold that the district court
illegally sentenced the Hammonds to terms of imprisonment
less than the statutory minimum. A minimum sentence
mandated by statute is not a suggestion that courts have
discretion to disregard.

[Snobblevitch]

8. Yes, a federal court and a federal judge.

[jberryhill]

9. Your previous post suggested you thought it was the same judge

No, the appeal was decided by a panel of three judges not "a" judge.

You asked if "the" judge decided to look into it on "his" own.

The trial court judge was a "she" not a "he", and the appellate decision was issued by three other judges.

[Snobblevitch]

11. You missed my point. (Zoom!)

My question was how and/or who went back to this case(s) and the apparantly shorter sententences than called for. How did this happen?

(I do not care about the gender of the judge(s).

[jberryhill]

12. Is your question answered?

It happened in accordance with due process of law, and the Hammonds were represented at each step by legal counsel.

The appellate court decision was appealed to the US Supreme Court, which declined the appeal.

So, all told, there were a minimum of four judges (the trial judge, the appeals panel, and the Justice responsible for that district) which had their hands on this thing.

[Snobblevitch]

13. Who made made the appeal?

Never mind.

[jberryhill]

15. .

http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammonds%20Appeal%209th%20district%20court.pdf

The government appeals the sentences of Steven and
Dwight Hammond, whom a jury convicted of maliciously
damaging the real property of the United States by fire, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(1). The convictions carried
minimum sentences of five years of imprisonment, but citing
Eighth Amendment concerns, the district court sentenced
Steven to only twelve months and one day of imprisonment
and Dwight to only three months of imprisonment. Because
the sentences were illegal and the government did not waive
its right to appeal them, we vacate the sentences and remand
for resentencing.

-----

Note that the Hammond's lawyers outnumbered the government:

COUNSEL

Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant United States Attorney; S.
Amanda Marshall, United States Attorney, District of
Oregon, Portland, Oregon, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lawrence H. Matasar, Lawrence Matasar, P.C., Portland,
Oregon, for Defendant-Appellee Steven Dwight Hammond.

Marc D. Blackman and Kendra M. Matthews, Ransom &
Blackman, LLP, for Defendant-Appellee Dwight Lincoln
Hammond, Jr.

[jberryhill]

16. Incidentally, this is what the Hammonds did to that teenage relative mentioned in the case

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/05/oregon-rancher-heroes-accused-of-child-abuse.html

[tazkcmo]

3. Appeal.

The govt appealed the decision a week after original trial and won.

https://popehat.com/2016/01/04/what-happened-in-the-hammond-sentencing-in-oregon-a-lawsplainer/

[cali]

4. Because the judge illegally sentenced them by not giving them the mandatory minimum

[jberryhill]

5. They were not "re-sentenced"

On appeal of the case, the appellate court found that the trial judge had erred by not applying the federal mandatory minimum for arson, which is five years.

The trial court judge did not have the discretion to sentence them to less than five years.

http://www.landrights.org/or/Hammond/Hammonds%20Appeal%209th%20district%20court.pdf

[Ms. Yertle]

7. Thanks, everyone

Didn't realize there was a minimum sentence. IOW, this was entirely foreseeable, and their original attorneys should have known this could happen.

[randome]

10. They probably did. And the Hammonds were likely expecting this to occur.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]