Out of order
Superior Court raps Judge McDaniel on sentences
While it is not easy to feel sympathy for those convicted of sex crimes, their legal rights must be respected like everyone else’s. The state Superior Court demonstrated this principle last week in a sharp opinion ordering the resentencing of a man who pleaded guilty to sexual offenses involving his siblings.
The court ruled that the sentence imposed on the defendant — identified only as A.S. to protect the victims’ privacy — was too severe. But it also signaled its concern about a “possible emerging pattern” of overly harsh sentencing of sex offenders by Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Donna Jo McDaniel. This was a clear admonishment to Judge McDaniel and a reminder of the need for trial judges to follow sentencing guidelines and hew to the facts of a case.
Standard sentencing guidelines called for A.S. to receive 3 to 12 months of imprisonment in one case and 36 to 54 months in a second. Instead, Judge McDaniel sentenced him to 30 to 60 months in the first case and 60 to 120 months in the second. She based the sentences on what the appellate court called a misapplication of the judicial record. For example, she said A.S. had previous offenses, a statement not substantiated by the evidence, and sought psychiatric help only after his arrest, when the opposite was true. He went to a hospital seeking treatment for mental illness and admitted his crimes, triggering the investigation.
In a footnote to its order regarding A.S., the Superior Court also expressed concern about another defendant, Gabino Bernal. Twice, Bernal appealed the sentences Judge McDaniel gave him for sex offenses, and each time, the appellate court vacated punishments it considered too harsh and told Judge McDaniel to try again. His lawyers have cited more than a dozen other cases in which Judge McDaniel purportedly treated defendants with a questionably heavy hand.
As the Superior Court noted, trial judges have the discretion to mete out punishments that fall short of or exceed the standard sentencing guidelines. Nevertheless, these should be the exception, not the rule, and each exception should be substantiated by the facts of the case. In the cases involving A.S., the Superior Court found, the threshold for imposing sentences above the standard range was not met. Rather, the court said, a sentence below the standard range might even have been appropriate.
Standard sentencing guidelines are important for various reasons. First, they reflect society’s consensus about the punishment fitting the crime. Second, they promote consistency, which is integral to the concept of equal justice under the law. If Judge McDaniel considers the penalties for certain crimes too soft, she should lobby the Legislature to change them. She should not try to legislate from the bench.
The order to resentence A.S. underscores the fundamental importance of appellate courts, which exist not only to ensure the fair adjudication of disputes between private parties and between private parties and the government but to make sure judges toe the line, too. In the courthouse, if nowhere else, every person should get a fair shake.