cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Farmer Gets 50 Years 





Marijuana Farmer Gets 50 Years 
Posted by FoM on March 09, 2001 at 10:29:20 PT
By Elaine Silvestrini, Freehold Bureau
Source: Asbury Park Press 
Saying this was a case in which the state's mandatory sentencing laws required a penalty that is "simply too severe," a Superior Court judge nonetheless yesterday sent a convicted marijuana grower to state prison for up to 50 years. "The court imposed this sentence because the court felt obligated to do so under the law," said Judge Paul F. Chaiet, a former prosecutor. "Mandatory sentencing provisions can create difficult results. In the court's view, this is one of those times where the ultimate results are difficult to accept." 
Under the sentence, William J. Allegro, 32, of Bradley Beach, must serve 16 years and 8 months before being considered for parole.Even Monmouth County Prosecutor John Kaye seemed uncomfortable with the length of the sentence. Kaye stressed he harbors no sympathy for someone who operates a drug manufacturing facility and said he believes marijuana is a serious problem, especially since it is more far potent today than it ever was. But Kaye noted that prison terms are often not as long for offenses such as murder, rape, kidnapping and aggravated assault. Such a sentencing disparity, he said, "it throws the whole system out of kilter and makes people wonder about it." However, Kaye stopped short of saying he thought the sentence was too harsh. Allegro was convicted Aug. 9 of maintaining a drug production facility and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Allegro's marijuana-growing facility in his Monmouth Avenue garage apartment was discovered on Feb. 21, 1999, during a fire blamed on an overloaded electrical outlet.A total of 19 pounds of marijuana in two storage containers and heat lamps and other equipment used to grow it were found by firefighters when they looked around the apartment for an ax they had misplaced, according to Chaiet and Assistant Prosecutor Barbara J. Rynne. Jurors heard testimony about only eight pounds of marijuana. Another judge, James Kennedy, prevented Rynne from using as evidence another 11 pounds of marijuana, ruling that a firefighter should not have opened the second storage container after discovering marijuana in the first.After the fire, Allegro was a fugitive for three or four months before being arrested in North Carolina with $31,000 in cash. According to court papers prepared by Allegro's lawyer, public defender Thomas Largey, the defendant has worked in the construction field for several years and obtained his equivalency diploma in 1985. Largey described Allegro as someone with a drug problem who grew marijuana for his own use and to share with friends. Chaiet said Allegro had a "significant juvenile record" and was sentenced in 1993 to four years in prison for possession of about two-thirds of a pound of marijuana in a school zone with intent to distribute.Largey pointed out that Allegro's past record included only nonviolent offenses and the one indictable conviction, saying the sentence the prosecutor sought was "harsh." Without the state's extended-term sentencing law for certain repeat drug offenders, Allegro would have faced 18 years with seven to be served without possibility of parole, according to the judge, who said he "would have been perfectly comfortable" imposing that sentence."The significance of the offense would have been recognized, his record considered and society protected." But acting under guidelines established by the state attorney general, Rynne made a motion seeking the longer term. Chaiet noted that unless he could rule that the prosecutor was being "arbitrary and capricious," he was required to grant the motion.Largey urged the judge to rule that the guidelines are unconstitutional because they don't allow for exceptions in the interest of justice.However, Chaiet said such an exception would not have changed the outcome in this case. And the judge cited case law stating that an interest-of-justice exception is not necessary. Later, Largey said the case would be appealed, and that the constitutionality of the attorney general's guidelines would be the main issue. Complete Title: Marijuana Farmer Gets 50 Years Despite Judge's Misgivings Source: Asbury Park Press (NJ) Author: Elaine Silvestrini, Freehold BureauPublished: March 9, 2001Copyright: 2001 Asbury Park Press Conatact:  yourviews app.com Forum: http://chat.injersey.com/ Website: http://www.injersey.com/app/CannabisNews - Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by NiftySplifty on March 09, 2001 at 23:06:26 PT
One day would have been too harsh a sentence!
To think that this man received a longer sentence than your average rapist shows what a sham this justice system is!Nifty...(but I always love the Nazi-phonetic ridicule! Vee haf vayz uf maykeen yu tahk!)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on March 09, 2001 at 19:14:21 PT:
"The more things change...
the more they stay the same."Nuremburg, Germany, 1946: "I vhuss only folloving orduss!"New Jersey, USA, 2001: "The court imposed this sentence because the court felt obligated to do so under the law."68 years between us and the anti-Jew laws of the 3rd Reich. We know where those led.54 years between us and the Nuremburg Trials. You'd think an American judge would be able to see the obvious parallels. After all, it was American jurisprudence which first entertained the idea of 'war crimes' tribunals against the captured Nazis, and the ideas that even the lowliest private of any military should know what the Laws of War were...and what an 'unlawful or immoral' order was. So blind...so very blind. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Rice101 on March 09, 2001 at 17:01:28 PT:
Thats just Wrong
This is just one of those things that makes me violently ill! Even with his record he should not have gotton 50+ some murderers get less jail time then that. COME ON!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by sm247 on March 09, 2001 at 16:52:50 PT
No hits no runs no errors
 This court had no balls to simply dismiss the case rather than place a wrongful punishment on the person. Some of the statements made by Kaye were erronious or otherwise an outright lie. RECALL !!!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Dan B on March 09, 2001 at 11:18:20 PT:
Once Again, Disgusted
However, Kaye stopped short of saying he thought the sentence was too harsh. Of course he did. In cases like this one, the prosecutor, not the judge, decides the penalties. This sentence is too harsh, and Kaye knew that going into this trial. He doesn't care. All he wanted was another prosecutorial feather in his cap, justice be damned.The judge, of course, could have ruled against the law, challenging its constitutionality. He didn't, and therein is his cowardice revealed. His action is almost as shameful as Kaye's.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by zenarch on March 09, 2001 at 10:56:29 PT
Come on Kaye!
Show the world you have a spine - either the sentence is too L O N G which calls into question thousands of other cases w/ mandatory minimum sentences.ORThe guy got what he deserved, which declares that murder, rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault etc. ad nauseam are L E S S serious than the violence-free act of cultivating the GOOD HERB!!!Come on Kaye, be a hero!
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: