Jing Xin Xiao, 41, was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine for “ice” trafficking and a fine of $5,000 for illegal possession of controlled substance.
He will serve five-year prison term without parole or suspension.
The court, however, credited time served by Xiao since April 2010 at the Department of Corrections facility.
He is expected to be released from prison on April 7, 2015, at 4:49 p.m.
In imposing the sentence, Wiseman said “the court acknowledged the witness’s testimony and the arguments of counsel that the mandatory sentences recently imposed on drug trafficking have had an effect on reducing the drug activity in the community. That being said, the five-year sentence without parole equals a 15-year sentence and that is not by any standard a lenient sentence.”
He added, “[T]his court has not and will not hesitate to impose the mandatory 25-year- sentence without parole, notwithstanding this court’s disdain for such mandatory sentence.”
Assistant Attorney General Russel Lorfing prosecuted the case while Chief Public Defender Adam Hardwicke served as Jing Xin Xiao’s counsel.
Wiseman said Jing Xin Xiao was “convicted of crimes that are very detrimental to this society and a jail term is appropriate.”
The judge reiterated his request for the Legislature to revisit the mandatory sentencing provided for a defendant convicted of “ice” charges, particularly Title 6, Section 2141 (b) (1) of the Commonwealth Code.
According to Wiseman, “It is interesting to note that Public Law 11-24 amended the previous law with respect to importing methamphetamine or ice into the commonwealth providing that if it is more than five grams the mandatory sentence of 25 years with no parole or suspension applies while trafficking of ice does not have any weight requirement. This is troubling because for the most part, there would not be any trafficking, or little of it, if there was no import of it.”
Wiseman said: “Mandatory incarceration statutes curb the discretion of prosecutors and judges over certain offenses or types of offenders. The divesting of prosecutors and judges of the time honored control over criminal sentences is of concern because the discretion is the touchstone of a judicial sentence. A sentence should reflect a deliberate sentencing plan and be tailored to the particular offense and offender, such as the criminal history of the defendant, was he serving on probation at time of offense, was there harm to any victim, was the offense committed at a school or other public institution, were weapons used during the crime…. In a mandated sentence such as in this case, these and other factors have no bearing on defendant’s sentence.”
