United States v. Azra Hamilton
462 F.2d 1190
D.C. Cir.
1972
Check Treatment

*2 powerless stated that it was to consider for under Title Jr., Washington, Shorter, John A. Mr. prior convictions, because his appellant. C.,D. for proceeded pris and to sentence him to a Bernstein, Daniel J. U. S. Mr. Asst. years.1 on term of nature and The Atty., A. Messrs. Thomas whom dates of convictions are Atty. Flannery, at U. time S. follows: filed, Terry Phil- A. and brief John vehicle, 1947—Unauthorized use aof Cohan, Attys., ip were on L. Asst. U. S. vehicle, use 1948—Unauthorized aof brief, appellee. H. Harold Mr. Housebreaking, 1952— Titus, Jr., Atty., U. also entered S. Housebreaking, 1952— appearance appellee. 1962—Harrison Narcotics Act.2 McGOWAN, Before LEVENTHAL Judges. ROBB, and Circuit Appellant now asserts that holding applicable, and that Judge: McGOWAN,Circuit and the sentence should vacated appeal presents single question This District in order that the case remanded holding possibility reach to the of our in Watson of ac consider the States, cording appellant Title II treatment.3 repre sentencing, any 1. At counsel made allusion ther court nor counsel prime example him sented to be “a to it. years man than 20 been more Harrison Act 2. Proof narcotics,” he addicted to asked appears record. tion The Govern- “sent institution he can some where power District relies on the Court’s ment get proper psychological medical supply judicial this deficien- notice re treatment he needs.” The court’s ready represents cy; itself as and further sponse to this was as follows: housebreaking prove that, although the Unfortunately, score, “THE COURT: on this indictments are silent housebreakings you know, prior occurred least one of because of night, vio- makes a crime of which involved, eligi- he and the crimes 4251(b). § under 18 U.S.C. lence ble for under Narcotics us, appellant argument did At oral Addict Act there is a Rehabilitation of the existence the fact not contest mandatory here. sentence although convictions, is not ijt ^5 extended clear that this concession aspect just “I alleged “nighttime” will recommend medical referred governing possible, we take of the to. In view if I don’t what but know aspect law, however, is irrelevant. available circumstances.” sentencing place Chicquelo six took 146 U.S. 3. See ; App.D.C. Watson, after nei- months our decision Congress imputing independent contrarily, Government, asserts narrowly purpose.5 its Watson is to confined facts, that the independent purposes There are three by us not to be held there might conceivably thought to which justify disqualifying offens- narcotics involved submission es. It is the Government’s (4). First, of subsection there is the *3 any prior that convictions purpose Judge in which identified Robb nonviolent, are offenses, other violent or Watson, namely, his “a dissent in that Watson not of the within the intendment previously con- hardened offender twice holding.4 felony, or victed of a whether likely prospect for after is not a as We do view Watson does not rehabilitation.” 489 F.2d at 477. Since underlying ra Government. justification re- that jected by considered and holding in tionale of our constitutional however, majority, the Watson be Watson derived from the conflict in foreclosed to the Government pur tween the remedial benevolent and Congress long pro- this as case. So poses sought by Nar to be achieved procedure whereby vided a the likelihood Act, cotic Addict on the Rehabilitation by of rehabilitation is determined hand, and, other, one exclu on judge, trial assistance who seek the any sion from its of addict benefits regard, Attorney of in General that “who has been convicted of a on justification there is for a no rational prior two or more occasions.” 18 U.S.C. presumption conclusive that an addict 4251(f) (4). provision op This latter § prior two more awaiting erates to addicts sen divide tions is not rehabilitable. tence for a federal two offense into possible congressional pur- A second classes, depending upon whether pose, might thought justify which have been convicted of or more two (4), relates to the deterrence prior present felonies criminal to their enacting activity. of criminal In involvement. In Watson did not re we NARA, Congress clearly intend did not gard compatible this classification as nullify the deterrent effect of equal protection with Fifth Amendment respect criminal law with to narcotics concepts, disqualification because though prospect of addicts. Even prior addicts two or more convic II non-criminal may Title pur tions was at odds with the stated in reduce the law’s deterrent force pose (rehabilitation of the of nar Congress preserved Act some situations. portant im- justified addicts), to criminal activi- cotics and could disincentives Williams, U.S.App. in United States v. 143 convictions. Our sole concern (1970) ; validity case, therefore, D.C. 738 and Klein is with the bart v. United 142 of sub- two (1970). (4), F.2d 511 convictions section were not for narcotics offenses. which argues 4. The Government further that allegedly prepared violent nature of at least one 5. “The court must ... housebreaking particular convictions stat- to each ascribe utory ineligible makes for rehabilita- and to coordinate classification other, particular purposes tive treatment of Section 4251 with each reason these (f) disqualifies general purposes which “an offender with the more question, rele- who is convicted of a crime of violence.” and with other statute policies.” public the con- Devel- Without reference to the issue of vant statutes stitutionality Protection, provision, Equal see No. opments 71- in the Law — argued Fersner, Dis- States Harv.L.Rev. might 3, 1972, any qualification March think it clear that who we offender provision, properly in the con- is at odds construed be rehabilitable be found to rehabilitation, statutory scheme, text of the refers with the central justification require to the offense for sentence is about therefore and would prior felony independent purpose. pronounced, to be and not to to an reference ty. operates who contem- NARA to enhance those Thus, even addict eligible ways. First, plates Title chances noted two that he would be footnote, I with the fact Title must reckon Act, his a conviction on 28 U.S.C. allows some he have §§ will possibility charged addicts with crimes embark as with the well deny program which, him on will a treatment if suc- the District despite cessfully completed, his statu- results non-criminal charges being eligibility. tory dismissed. conduct, is criminal there no there deterrences, preserving Con- these In prosecution Thus, ad- to conviction. thought gress them sufficient must have dict who committed two felonies great majority ad- of narcotics for the dicts, 1966 has on record say, is to most disqualified and under subsection ponderable in- NARA not create (4); but an addict who commits activ- criminal incidence of crease ity. However, may re- *4 same two felonies after 1966 probabili- of as a matter disposition respect of ceive Title I each, in thought legislators ty, have could thereby free and maintain a record im- deterrence that the reduced level of of convictions. plicit II sufficient in Title not be way addicts, force in and that the full second which NARA re for some necessary of criminal be duces likelihood that law would an addict will get by engaging prevent in fre- convictions is estab to quent them from two activity. lishing purpose, programs treatment which were criminal That by previously might argued, is advanced be non-existent. Since charged may, addict in on with crime under classification subsection persons II, assumptions (1) both Titles I and who have receive that prison term, demonstrably instead of a cured felonies are be committed two obtaining of his affliction. funds deterrence than Since less amenable to reducing purchase drugs not, (2) the with which to is rea who have by son for much of the crime them would committed law’s deterrent force addicts,6 engages unacceptable an addict in crim risk to who therefore create activity through thereafter, inal social order. by program made available concerned, appellant far is As how- addiction, NARA, is is less cured of argument ever, the is answer to that likely to accumulate convic two opin- in found footnote 13 tions than have been before he would Appellant’s prior convictions, like ion. Watson’s, prior to enact- occurred reasons, was, For two classifica ment NARA 1966. He there- these in by (4) fore, very beginning precluded not tion established subsection is from the discriminating by disposi- (4) II rational means subsection from Title respon among hand, on case of addicts the basis tion. On other concept. siveness So an addict who did have to deterrent not two ap long addict, as an or in “chances of nev- such Watson brought having pellant, is terms er conviction are within the second by markedly by solely (4) reason con NARA itself. subsection enhanced” 1966, it cannot victions rendered before F.2d at n. 13. Report obtaining Representatives is such funds The House of on sume motivating force, May strong Re- as the House 1966] NARA states: [No. desperation port “Narcotic to indicates. their drugs obtain often turn to crime in order necessarily imply money limit- obtain feed do not to to their addiction.” We post- ing (4) necessary with to addicts It to rationale to subsection our compelled would be rational felonies assume that addicts are to com- fact, purpose. acknowl- Given mit crimes order to obtain to this funds Report, drugs. purchase edged the need as- in the House It sufficient purpose cannot validate the more ble sanctions are be said that criminal application propensi- him. subsection’s necessary his criminal to deter ad- the mass of are for ties than conclude, short, Wat- that our We eligible Title dicts who are disposition.8 necessarily invalidates son decision applied to insofar com- addicts whose possible The third reach do not before 1966. We mitted might thought justify subsection be questions whether the subsection second, (4), relates, deter- like the constitutionally post- can activity. While rence of criminal might felonies,9 whether there deter- second ring is concerned regard between be a distinction in that commit- from two-time offenders and non-violent crimes.10 violent ting crimes, con- the third additional The extent and nature of addicts cerns the deterrence course, may, of criminal record urged that clean It records. could sen- relevant in the consideration tencing (4) helps criminal to deter subsection activity should be court of whether he knowl- such addicts because Since, how- afforded Title II treatment. ever, disqualify edge that convictions will out that we hold that it cannot rule Title II them from future ap- altogether, consideration vacate committing felo- will deter them from pellant’s sentence, case and remand the nies. resentencing the District in which necessary is not ease to de- shall free consider *5 assumption cide is too whether such an “eligible an offender” as within satisfy equal protec- far-fetched to meaning II. of Title although test, tion be- connection .the is so ordered. such third tween subsection purpose highly is tenuous at best. Judge (concurring): ROBB, Circuit justification apply only would my dissent For the reasons stated tions for offenses after the committed States, 141 U.S. passage NARA in 1966. Deterrence App.D.C. F.2d presupposes knowledge disqualifi- of the (1970), holding I that case think the knowledge cation, and there could be no recognize wrong; is I must nevertheless appel- Thus, 1966. the fact Accordingly, controlling I as it here. rendered lant’s convictions were ma- concur in the reached result again possi- jority. a means that noted, drugs the second and third the reason for we have much As rational, all, by addicts, may purposes ir- are if crime committed be discussed post-1966 felonies. rational tivity to assume that an addict’s sensi- issue, determining should to deterrent influences can be meas- Without strength additionally that, by anything as- even if it were other than the note ured pur- or both of of his sumed that either addiction. justify poses a could analysis also rules out retribution This felonies, post-1966 not follow does justifying for subsection necessarily read the statute a court must applied to whose at least as will some- courts in such a manner. While were rendered before 1966. imaginative imputing to Con- times normally Congress might con- justify gress which will more offender clude that three-time statutory classification, explicit see Devel- deserving punishment than an offender Protection, Equal opments in the Law — crime, who, while convicted of identical they supra should note 5 at ir- a clean that conclusion inferring the classi- when more restrained between when the difference doing itelf, fication explained ac- offenders (4) only applying to addicts date, when dates cident they birth post-1966 convictions. drugs. to narcotic became addicted n. 10. See 439 E.2d