Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Date published: Oct 26, 1964
Daniel Paul Sansone was convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment. Sansone challenged both the procedural integrity and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed and ultimately rejected his claims, affirming the district court’s decision.
Sansone argued that his criminal history score was inflated due to the inclusion of his juvenile adjudications, asserting that his commitment to the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services (DYS) was not a sentence of confinement. The court, however, noted that prior case law had upheld the inclusion of such adjudications as sentences of confinement. He also claimed insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that his juvenile adjudications resulted in confinement for at least sixty days, necessary for the assignment of criminal history points under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG). The court found no plain error, stating the record was ambiguous and did not allow for a clear determination of the length of his confinement.
Regarding the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, Sansone contended that the sentencing court overstated the seriousness of his past criminal record and failed to adequately consider his personal history. The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that the sentencing court had considered all relevant factors, and Sansone’s complaint was about the weight given to certain factors, not their consideration.
Additionally, in United States v. Sansone, No. 17399, Michael C. Sansone was convicted for willfully attempting to evade federal income tax for the year 1957. He was fined $2,000 and sentenced to 15 months of imprisonment. The appellate court addressed whether the evidence established willfulness and if Sansone was entitled to lesser-included-offense instructions. The court upheld the conviction, finding substantial independent evidence corroborating Sansone’s admissions and establishing his intent to evade taxes. This included the omission of significant gains from his 1957 tax return and his awareness of the tax implications of capital gains from prior experience and education. The court concluded that Sansone’s omissions and his direct testimony about his financial condition and tax knowledge supported the jury’s finding of willfulness.
