{"id":86494,"date":"2018-12-04T13:50:21","date_gmt":"2018-12-04T18:50:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?p=86494"},"modified":"2019-11-05T16:16:54","modified_gmt":"2019-11-05T21:16:54","slug":"impact-prior-state-drug-convictions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/impact-prior-state-drug-convictions","title":{"rendered":"Impact of Prior State Drug Convictions on Federal Sentences"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently tackled a complicated issue involving the application of New York state drug laws to the federal sentencing guidelines for a defendant convicted of possessing Xanax with the intent to distribute and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. In\u00a0United States v. Townsend<\/em>, the Second Circuit took a critical step forward in not penalizing federal criminal defendants as harshly just because they have a prior state criminal drug conviction.<\/p>\n
Prior State Drug Convictions<\/p><\/div>\n
Defendant Tyrek Townsend had a prior conviction in a New York state case involving the sale of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG), a pregnancy hormone, as a dieting aid. He was convicted under New York Penal Law \u00a7 220.31 for fifth degree criminal distribution of a controlled substance, which specifically incorporates by reference the list of controlled substances published by New York state law. In light of this prior conviction for a crime involving a controlled substance, the federal district court imposed an enhanced sentence of seven years for Townsend’s possession conviction. What made this case particularly interesting is that although HCG is considered a controlled substance under New York state law, it is not one of the listed controlled substances on the federal level. Thus, the Second Circuit was left to resolve the discrepancy in sentence length that the federal criminal sentencing guidelines would impose by looking to prior convictions under state law.<\/p>\n
The Second Circuit ultimately reasoned that it did not make sense that one defendant with a prior criminal drug conviction in a state with harsher or more inclusive controlled substance lists should receive a tougher federal criminal sentence than a defendant in a state without such guidelines. While it is certainly possible that the federal controlled substance list could be amended at a later date to include even more banned substances, until that happens, federal criminal defendants will not be subjected to harsher criminal sentences based on their own states’ laws that include more banned substances than would be considered at the federal level. The goal in this decision was more uniformity and fairness in the application of state laws covering prior drug convictions in federal sentencing decisions<\/a>.<\/p>\n