appropriate permission he shall "remain in the custody of the Bureau of prisons" for an interval of time "totaling no more than the lesser of one year or the term of imprisonment authorized for the offense."
The Guidelines, of course, would not countenance such a sentence. But for reasons stated on the record, I find the Guidelines to be inapplicable. Briefly to resummarize, the Guidelines speak of an "aggravated" felony. The felony in question was adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, so in any rational system of justice one would look to that court to determine whether or not it was "aggravated." That court conclusively answered the question by imposing a sentence of six months when fifteen years were available to it.
I take judicial notice of a practice of the New York defense bar -- with the acquiescence and sometimes active support of the judiciary -- when dealing with a client with no criminal record who is accused of a minuscule narcotics offense and may have a valid but exceedingly-difficult-to-establish entrapment defense. In such circumstances the practice is to advise the client to forgo the defense and plead guilty in reliance on the widely accepted assumption that the judge will treat the matter as being as minuscule as it in fact is. This may not -- in the abstract -- appear to be the ideal administration of justice. However, it relieves the lawyer of the horror of advising a client to stand trial and then, failing to establish the defense, seeing him or her receive a life-destroying Rockefeller-law sentence.
Compare North Carolina v. Alford (1970) 400 U.S. 25, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162, 91 S. Ct. 160. Also, it permits the judiciary to get on with its business despite the unworkable situation with which the state legislature has confronted it.
No rational system of justice would countenance permitting, let alone requiring, a plea of guilty entered under such circumstances automatically to transform a ten-month federal sentence into one of roughly five years. Being required to assume the authors of the Guidelines to be rational, I must conclude that they were unaware of the impact upon New York defendants of Application Note 7 to § 2L1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines (1993), which effectively places all state narcotics convictions (including New York's) under the rubric, "aggravated felony." I therefore find, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) (1985 & Supp. 1993), that there exist circumstances of a kind "not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines."
As indicated on the record, my purpose in pursuing this procedure was to find a way of assuring that the defendant will not again enter the United States without appropriate permission. As explained at defendant's sentencing on November 12, 1993, the alternative appeared to be the destruction of a human being at considerable cost to the taxpayers (according to the Pre-sentence Probation Report a total of approximately $ 104,000).
DATED: November 23, 1993
New York, New York
WHITMAN KNAPP, SENIOR U.S.D.J.