UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
DARRELL EVERETT WILLIAMS, APPELLANT

8th Cir. | 1991-09-06
No. 91-1219EM
Before FAGG, BOWMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
943 F.2d 896 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1991) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that a defendant must be sentenced under the statutes and guidelines in effect at the time of the original sentencing, not at the time of probation revocation.


Facts & Procedural History

Williams pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana and was sentenced to probation. He later violated probation by selling marijuana. The district cour…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Everett Williams appeals the twelve month sentence he received following the revocation of his probation. We remand for resentencing.

Williams pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana, and on August 5, 1988, he was sentenced to three years probation. Williams later violated a number of state laws, including the sale of marijuana. In January 1991 the district court revoked Williams’s probation and sentenced him to twelve months imprisonment. The district court sentenced Williams under the guidelines then in effect, applying policy statements contained in chapter seven of the sentencing guidelines that govern sentencing following probation revocation. See U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1, 7B1.3, 7B1.4 (Nov. 1, 1990).

Williams contends the district court committed error in failing to sentence him under the statutes and guidelines that applied when he was originally sentenced in August 1988. We agree. In United States v. Von Washington, 915 F. 2d 390 (8th Cir.1990), this court held that “following probation revocation, the district court [must] impose a sentence that was available at the time of the original sentencing.” Id. at 391. Chapter seven of the guidelines did not become effective until November 1, 1990. Thus, the district court erroneously considered guideline policy statements that were not available when Williams was originally sentenced in August 1988.

Accordingly, we remand to the district court for resentencing. We leave to the district court the Government’s contention that because Williams was in possession of a controlled substance, the district court must “sentence [Williams] to not less than one-third of the original sentence,” 18 U.S.C. § 8565(a) (1988), notwithstanding the guidelines sentence required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw