United States v. Walker, No. 09-6498 (6th Cir. Aug. 11, 2011) (to be published).
Panel of Judges Keith, Clay, and Cook.
Defendant appealed the substantive reasonableness of his thirty-six-month sentence for escape.
Court found that the sentencing court impermissibly lengthened the defendant's sentence to promote his rehabilitation. Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Defendant had a history of drug abuse and mental illness. His conviction in this case was for escaping from supervised release (a Salvation Army halfway house). Issues with his medication contributed to the offense. Guideline sentencing range was 15 to 21 months. Defendant moved for a downward departure or variance, citing diminished mental capacity and cooperation. The district court imposed an above-guidelines sentence of 36 months, so the defendant could "'benefit from all the government can offer' in terms of treatment."
Citing Tapia, the Court noted that "The Supreme Court recently resolved any potential conflict between these provisions, holding that 'a court may not impose or lengthen a prison sentence to enable an offender to complete a treatment program or otherwise promote rehabilitation.'" In this case, the sentencing court "did precisely what Tapia forbids."
