Pubdate: Fri, 09 Mar 2001
Source: Asbury Park Press (NJ)
Copyright: 2001 Asbury Park Press
Contact:  http://www.injersey.com/app/
Forum: http://chat.injersey.com/
Author: Elaine Silvestrini, Freehold Bureau

MARIJUANA FARMER GETS 50 YEARS DESPITE JUDGE'S MISGIVINGS

FREEHOLD -- 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.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D