United States v. Gino Rosciano

499 F.2d 166, 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9187

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
• Decided: April 12, 1974
• Docket: 73-1666
• Status: Published

Opinions

HASTINGS, Senior Circuit Judge.

This case presents a single question for review on appeal, viz.: whether the trial court’s refusal to order a presentence report was an abuse of discretion. However, because of the various ramifications of this issue argued here, we shall detail relevant parts of the course of this litigation in order to clarify the situation in what otherwise might be considered a frivolous appeal.

Defendant Gino Rosciano was charged in a two-count indictment. Count I charged that he and nine other men¹ conspired to possess goods stolen from an interstate freight shipment in violation of Title 18, U.S.C. § 371. Count II charged a violation of the substantive offense, Title 18 U.S.C. § 659. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict of acquittal on the Count I conspiracy charge, and a verdict of guilty on the Count II substantive offense. Judgment was entered on this verdict and defendant was sentenced to a term of six years imprisonment on March 3,1972.

Defendant appealed his conviction to this court. On February 16, 1973, a division of our court affirmed his conviction in an unpublished order, 474 F.2d 1350. The only issues raised on that appeal were the giving and refusal of certain instructions and the identification procedure used with respect to defendant prior to the trial. It is conceded that no issues were raised concerning the denial of a presentencing investigation, the denial of probation or the severity of the six-year sentence imposed. Our court denied a petition for rehearing on March 9, 1973. A timely petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court on June 18, 1973, 412 U.S. 948, 93 S.Ct. 3007, 37 L.Ed.2d 1001. The mandate of this court was filed in the district court on June 25, 1973.

Three days after the mandate issued defendant filed a motion in the district court for reduction of sentence and for admission to probation or, in the alternative, for such further and different relief as the court might deem proper. A passing reference was made therein that, at the time of initial sentencing, no presentence investigation had been made. Defendant’s motion requested that a presentence investigation be ordered for the purpose of verifying the representations made therein and sought a hearing on the motion. A hearing was held July 3, 1973, and the court on that date ordered that the sentence be modified so that defendant could serve his six-year sentence under the provisions of Title 18, U.S.C. § 4208(a)(2), thereby making defendant eligible for immediate parole.

Thereafter, on July 12, 1973, defendant filed a motion for stay of execution pending appeal, or, in the alternative, for 30 days in which to wind up his business affairs. The court held a hearing thereon and granted an extension of stay of execution for two weeks, until July 27, 1973.

On July 11, 1973, defendant filed notice of appeal from the order of July 3, 1973, modifying his six-year sentence. His notice of appeal further stated that he was appealing from that part of such order which, “by implication, [denied] that portion of the * * * Motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which sought a presentenee investigation, a hearing on said Motion and probation.”

It is now apparent that defendant claims prejudice because the trial court denied his request for a presentence investigation and report in the instant proceeding. It is also clear that he is relying on Rule 35, Fed.R.Crim.P., hereinabove referred to. Rule 35 reads:

The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided herein for the reduction of sentence. The court may reduce a sentence within 120 days after the sentence is imposed, or within 120 days after receipt by the court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal, or within 120 days after entry of any order or judgment of the Supreme Court denying review of, or having the effect of upholding, a judgment of conviction. The court may also reduce a sentence upon revocation of probation as provided by law. ■

Rule 32(c)(1), Fed.R.Crim.P., deals with the making of presentence investigations and states, inter alia, that this shall be done by the probation service and reported to the court “before the imposition of sentence or the granting of probation unless the court otherwise directs.”

On brief and in oral argument, defendant has further refined the crux of the issue presented, viz.: whether the trial court erred in failing “to permit, and consider, a pre-sentence investigation pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1) without indicating the reasons for such a refusal so that they can be subject to review.” (Emphasis added.)

Here we are faced with an admittedly narrow point in the sentencing procedure. The district court, after an affirmance of conviction and the issuance of mandate, entertained defendant’s motion for reduction of sentence and for the granting of probation or other proper relief. A hearing was held as requested. After considering the motion, which set out in great detail defendant’s own characterization of his reasons for relief, and hearing counsel on the question of mitigation, the trial court took the matter under advisement until later in the day. The court thereupon, in effect, sustained the motion for relief by modifying the sentence as hereinabove set out, making defendant eligible for immediate parole. Defendant contends that this is not enough because his showing, had it been supported by a presentence investigation at that juncture, would have entitled him to immediate probation by the court itself. Defendant further' contends that this “would have and would still, be more beneficial than incarceration.”

It is conceded further that the guilt or innocence of defendant is not before us on this appeal. Yet defendant has devoted much effort and time to demonstrate that his part in the theft involved in this case was minimal as compared to the activities of his co-defendants. Defendant’s efforts, of course, were to bolster his plea for a reduction of sentence or probation. Such contention, however, was effectively rebutted by the Government.

In short, we are requested to exercise .our supervisory power over the district court and review the ultimate sentence as modified, as well as the denial of probation. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in this sentencing procedure?

The language of Rule 32(c) (1), supra, vests a discretion in the district court to direct that a presentence investigation not be made before the granting of probation or the imposition of sentence. We have on many occasions reviewed the exercise of this discretion. It is not a new subject and has continually received our careful scrutiny.

Beginning with United States v. Karavias, 7 Cir., 170 F.2d 968, 971-972 (1948), an opinion by then District Judge Swygert, now Chief Judge, sitting by designation with Judges Major and Minton, recognized that a discretion was vested in the trial court to determine whether a presentence investigation was unnecessary.

In United States v. Tenenbaum, 7 Cir., 327 F.2d 210, 212, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 905, 84 S.Ct. 1165, 12 L.Ed.2d 177 (1964), an opinion by Judge Kiley, joined by Judges Hastings and Swygert, held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a presentence investigation, citing Karavias, supra.

In United States v. Fannon, 7 Cir., 403 F.2d 391 (1968), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 394 U.S. 457, 89 S.Ct. 1224, 22 L.Ed.2d 416 (1969), in an opinion by Judge Swygert, joined in by Judges Castle and Kiley, it was stated:

It is the rule in this circuit that if a trial judge in the exercise of judicial discretion determines that a presentence investigation is unnecessary and will not be of benefit in fixing a proper and just sentence, such a presentence investigation may be dispensed with. [Citing Karavias, supra, and Tenenbaum, supra.] In the present case, the district judge had ample opportunity to observe and consider all the evidence relating to the defendant’s life history. On the witness stand, the defendant testified about his marital and family background, military service, and prior felony record. At the time of sentencing, the judge stated he had studied the matter, that he believed a presentence report was unnecessary, and even invited defense counsel and the defendant to state any facts which the court might be unaware of otherwise. Neither the defendant nor his counsel stated any relevant fact which was not otherwise known to the court. Id. at 394.

In United States v. Hutul, 7 Cir., 416 F.2d 607 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1012, 90 S.Ct. 573, 24 L.Ed.2d 504 (1970), in an opinion by Chief Judge Castle, joined by Judges Cummings and Kerner, it was stated:

Defendant Mitchell contends that the district court abused its discretion by not ordering a presentence report on her before passing sentence. Rule 32(c), Fed.Rules Crim.Proc., provides that the probation service of the court shall make a presentence investigation “unless the court otherwise directs.” The decision to direct that no presentence investigation be made rests in the sound discretion of the district court. [Citing Fannon, supra, and Karavias, supra.]

Defendant Mitchell has failed to show an abuse of such discretion or how she was prejudiced by the absence of a presentence report. The record reveals that Mitchell’s attorney, in his argument in mitigation after judgment was rendered, brought out the facts necessary to make a proper determination for sentencing. 'Thus, the fact that defendant Mitchell was only 19 years of age at the time of the crime, was a first offender, and was not as actively involved in the scheme as the other defendants was brought out. On this basis, the court imposed a one-year sentence to be followed by two years probation, as compared to the five-year sentences imposed on the other defendants. It is not the function of this Court to substitute its judgment on the proper sentence for that of the district court which viewed the demeanor and deportment of the defendants standing before it. While the use of presentence investigations and reports should be encouraged, we find no abuse of discretion in the instant ease. Id. at 627.

In United States v. Teague, 7 Cir., 445 F.2d 114, 122 (1971), an opinion by Judge Kerner, joined by Judges Hastings and Kiley, reaffirmed our holding in Hutul, supra, and reiterated our view that “we believe it to be the better practice for judges to consider information in pre-sentence reports.” Nevertheless, we found no abuse of discretion.

Finally, in Farbo v. United States, 7 Cir., 452 F.2d 132, 134 (1971), in an opinion by Senior Judge Duffy, joined by Judges Cummings and Pell, we found it clear from the record that a presentence report was not needed by the trial court, and held that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in determining that such a report was not necessary, citing Fannon, supra, and Tenenbaum, supra.

We find there is solid declaration of policy by this court that it generally is the better practice for a trial court, before final sentencing or probation, to order a presentence investigation and report. It is a well recognized and important aid in sentencing. We again subscribe to this policy and urge that the practice be followed by the district courts. However, we also recognize that a decision not to do so may fall short of being an abuse of discretion, when there clearly is no need for the same.

We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the evidence and colloquies between court and counsel; the interrogation of the defendant, both at the time of the initial sentencing and the hearing on the motion for reduction of sentence; and also the lengthy recitals by defendant in his several motions in the case. Contrary to defendant’s contentions, we find that the sentencing court was presented with a clear and comprehensive picture of defendant’s family life, personal habits, business career and the circumstances offered in mitigation. In each instance the trial judge gave opportunity for additional information. His actions were the result of a considered judgment. He had defendant before him in person. We conclude that here, as in Hutul, supra, the court did not err in finding that a presentence investigation and report were not necessary. We find no abuse of discretion.

Further, we find from the record that the trial judge made clear his reasons for not ordering such report and conclude that he did not err in failing to more specifically recite and detail such reasons. He might have more explicitly labeled them as such.

Defendant’s argument that immediate enlargement on probation is more beneficial than incarceration is merely a plea for us to review the sentence as ultimately fixed by the court. As stated in Hutul, supra, 416 F.2d at 627, this is not our proper function. We most recently said in United States v. Kaczmarek, 7 Cir., 490 F.2d 1031 at page 1036 (1974): “The authority of the District Court to impose any sentence within the statutory maximum is not subject to review except under ‘extraordinary circumstances,’ [citing cases].” Since no such extraordinary circumstances are present here, we shall not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.

We have reviewed the sentencing record of all the co-defendants in this case. Defendant Rosciano received a much lighter sentence than most of the others and it was well within the statutory maximum. We cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in determining the sentence finally imposed.

We have carefully considered defendant’s many citations of authority concerning desirable sentencing procedures. We are fully cognizant of our responsibilities in this area. However, we find no rational basis in the instant appeal for departing from the course heretofore charted by this court. Here, it is apparent that defendant believes that any result other than probation is a gross miscarriage of justice. We do not agree.

In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the district court appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1 . The others charged in the indictment were William Pascente, Anthony LaBarbera, Joseph Pagone, Edward Wedge, Charles Mack, Robert Buss, Davicl Buss, Orville Edens and Anthony Circelli.