Opinion
Criminal No. 04-0333 (PLF).
April 22, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 15, 2005, defendant filed a motion to correct her sentence. Defendant maintains that the Court applied the standard from the 2004 Sentencing Guidelines rather than the 2002 Sentencing Guidelines in considering defendant's request for a downward departure on the basis of reduced mental capacity under Section 5K2.13 of the Guidelines. The Court now has reviewed a transcript of the sentencing hearing and has determined that the Court did, indeed, err and read the standard from the 2004 Sentencing Guidelines into the record. In order to create an accurate record, therefore, the Court will vacate the sentence and schedule a new sentencing hearing.
The Court would like to note, however, that its conclusions remain largely unchanged. The government argues in its opposition to plaintiff's motion that because the Court found that defendant's reduced mental capacity did not contribute to the commission of the offense, a downward departure is inappropriate under the 2002 Guidelines as well. The government is correct. The Court concluded, in its oral ruling, that it was "not convinced of any significant connection in the evidence before me between the claimed mental deficiency and the crime that the defendant has admitted committing." Tr. at 25. Although the 2002 Guidelines do not include the requirement that the reduced mental capacity "contributed substantially" to the commission of the offense, they do state that "the extent of the departure should reflect the extent to which the reduced mental capacity contributed to the commission of the offense." See U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13. As the Court noted, it has already found that there was no "significant" connection between defendant's mental capacity and the commission of the offense. The Court also notes that it considered, yet declined, to impose a non-Guidelines sentence under Booker.
To create an accurate record, however, the Court will vacate the sentence imposed and will resentence the defendant. Defendant also suggests a number of other "erroneous determinations" in the Court's ruling and will have the opportunity to raise any such objections prior to the resentencing. The Court would note, however, that several of defendant's objections go to the question of whether defendant suffered from Dissociative Identity Disorder. The Court explained at the sentencing hearing that it was "prepared to accept the first opinion offered to us by Dr. Giunta . . . that is that Ms. Lyles may suffer from DID." Tr. at 23. Any arguments relating to defendant's actual diagnosis, therefore, would have no impact on this Court's ruling. The Court would suggest that both parties closely review the transcript of the Court's rulings during the March 14, 2005 hearing to make certain that any arguments alleging erroneous determinations accurately reflect the Court's rulings.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the sentence imposed by this Court on March 14, 2005 is VACATED; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendant does not have to surrender and report to Alderson Federal Prison Camp on May 12, 2005; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion for release from custody pending appeal [29] is DENIED as moot.
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear on May 6, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. for a new sentencing.
SO ORDERED.