Eligibility for Downward Departure Requires More than Mental Illness
(U.S. v. Martin, No. 02-1764, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)
A district court judge used proper discretion in denying a motion for downward departure, a three judge panel ruled, indicating that mental illness alone did not create eligibility for a lower sentence.
Elmer Ray Martin was indicted on two counts of bank robbery and argued that he was eligible for a downward departure (lower sentence) because of a lengthy history of mental illness. The district court rejected Martin's argument and sentenced him to 97 months in prison, where he would undergo mental health and substance abuse treatment.
On appeal, Martin said the lower court erroneously focused on two factors in denying the departure: the "societal purpose" that would be served by a departure and the interplay between Martin's substance abuse and his mental illness. The district court acknowledged Martin's mental illness but noted that he stopped taking medication and appeared to think clearly when robbin the bank, which he admitted he did to get money for cocaine.
"I'm not sure his mental capacity has been a factor in virtually everything that Mr. Martin has done in his life," the district court judge said. "I will take that into account in sentencing."
That judge had asked what "societal purpose" would be served by a downward departure. Martin "doesn't seem to have anything to be released to the community for. No significant history of employment, no community support no family support." The appeals court panel rejected Martin's argument challenging these assumptions.
The appeals court panel agreed with the district court that the robbery was not "the product of a significantly diminished mental capacity that did not arise out of his drug abuse." It cited the 6th Circuit decision in U.S. v. Watkins: "As long as the guideline range was properly computed, the district court was not unaware of its discretion to depart form the guideline range, and the sentence was not imposed in violation of law or as a result of an incorrect application of the guidelines, the failure to depart is not cognizable on appeal."
Mental Health Law Reporter, February 2004.
* home * e-mail Dr. Bursztajn * more about Dr. Bursztajn * other web sites
|
|