United States v. George Martorano
697 F.3d 216
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Martorano pled guilty to 19 counts including conspiracy to distribute narcotics and supervising a CCE.
- He was sentenced in 1988 to a general life sentence without parole.
- Since 1988 his sentence has repeatedly been reviewed in post-conviction proceedings.
- The current appeal challenges a Rule 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence and whether Ward controls general sentences.
- Ward held general sentences under the Guidelines may be improper; Martorano’s sentence predates the Guidelines, so Ward’s application is disputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ward applies to pre-Guidelines cases. | Martorano argues Ward makes his general sentence illegal. | Government argues Ward does not apply to pre-Guidelines sentences. | Ward does not apply to Martorano’s pre-Guidelines case. |
| Whether the general sentence for conspiracy and CCE violated Double Jeopardy. | Martorano contends the undifferentiated sentence conjoins two offenses improperly. | Martorano’s reading of Rutledge is not applicable to this sentence. | Rutledge does not require vacating the CCE sentence; the argument is futile. |
| Whether Ward is retroactive and controls this Rule 35(a) motion. | Ward is a retroactive remedy for improper general sentences. | Ward is not retroactive to pre-Guidelines cases. | Ward is not retroactively applicable to Martorano’s pre-Guidelines sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ward, 626 F.3d 179 (3d Cir. 2010) (invalidates improper general sentences under Guidelines)
- United States v. Rose, 215 F.2d 617 (3d Cir. 1954) (desirable separate treatment of counts in sentencing)
- United States v. Corson, 449 F.2d 544 (3d Cir. 1971) (en banc; disfavors general sentences)
- United States v. Kress, 944 F.2d 155 (3d Cir. 1991) (plenary review of illegal sentence under Rule 35(a))
- United States v. Woods, 986 F.2d 669 (3d Cir. 1993) (rules on burden and standard for Rule 35(a) relief)
- Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1996) (conspiracy vs. supervising CCE; double jeopardy concerns)
- United States v. Peeke, 153 F.166 (3d Cir. 1907) (old rule on general sentences exceeding counts)
- Jones v. Hill, 71 F.2d 932 (3d Cir. 1934) (precludes treating general sentence as sole remedy)