Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Stephanie Murphy, No. 22-cr-84-TOR (Dkt. 58, E.D. Wash.)

Summary

Stephanie Murphy's sentencing memorandum, filed April 19, 2023 as ECF No. 58 in United States v. Stephanie Murphy, No. 22-cr-84-TOR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, by Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho. It asks the Honorable Thomas O. Rice for time served followed by three years of supervised release, and for $62,499 in restitution owed jointly and severally with Stephanie Murphy's husband, with no other financial penalties. The defense gives four reasons: Stephanie Murphy left methamphetamine addiction and returned to family and work before being charged, the Murphys have complied with pretrial supervision, a return to jail would risk more harm than good, and the guideline range is relatively low. The memorandum says the Murphys now run the Fort Spokane Store and Restaurant in Davenport.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 2:22-cr-00084-TOR ECF No. 58 filed 04/19/23 PageID.302 Page 1 of 8

1 Colin Prince
Chief Appellate Attorney
10 North Post Street, Suite 700
2 Spokane, Washington 99201
509.624.7606
Attorney for Stephanie Murphy
3

6
United States District Court
7 Honorable Thomas O. Rice

8
United States, No. 22-cr-84-TOR
9
Plaintiff, Sentencing Memorandum
10
v.
11
Stephanie Murphy,
12
Defendant.
13

19
Case 2:22-cr-00084-TOR ECF No. 58 filed 04/19/23 PageID.303 Page 2 of 8

1 I. Introduction

2 Stephanie Murphy respectfully asks the Court for a sentence of time-served1

3 followed by three-years supervised release and restitution of $62,499.

4 II. Discussion

This sentencing memorandum will discuss a few issues, but we respectfully ask
5
the Court to focus on two themes that are particularly relevant here: family and work.
6
A. The Court should impose a time-served sentence and three-years
7
supervised release.
8 Stephanie Murphy respectfully submits that a time-served sentence followed by

9 three-years supervised release satisfies the Sentencing Reform Act’s goals:

10 retribution, 2 deterrence, 3 public safety,4 and rehabilitation.5 That is true for four

11 reasons:

12 First, Ms. Murphy’s history—her arc into addiction and her self-propelled rise

13 back to sobriety—are critical to fashioning a just sentence. The short story is this: Ms.

15 1 Ms. Murphy was arrested on the charge. See ECF No. 30.

2 Commonly referred to as the “retribution” factor, the Sentencing Reform Act requires courts to
16 consider the “seriousness of the offense,” the need to “promote respect for the law, and to
provide just punishment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A).
17 3 The Sentencing Reform Act requires that courts impose sentences that are sufficient, but no
more than necessary, to “deter[] . . . criminal conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(1), (2)(B).
18
4 The Sentencing Reform Act requires courts to impose a sentence “to protect the public from
further crimes of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C).
19
5 The Sentencing Reform Act asks courts to consider “needed educational or vocational training,
medical care, or other correctional treatment” in imposing sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D).

Sentencing Memo
–1–
Case 2:22-cr-00084-TOR ECF No. 58 filed 04/19/23 PageID.304 Page 3 of 8

1 Murphy was raised well and has nothing but good things to say about her parents. This

2 isn’t the typical story of drug addiction.

3 The key paragraph in the PSR is No. 121. Ms. Murphy was 30-years old and

4 working SpokAnimal, a local animal shelter and humane society. Her life centered

5 around her work—it was her social circle and her financial support. As she told

6 Probation during her PSR interview, it was also what introduced her to drugs. She had

7 a close group of friends that got together regularly to play cards and simply spend time

8 together, and one night, someone’s sister offered the entire group methamphetamine.

9 It became the group’s regular habit.

10 It soon led to her termination. At some point, a supervisor at SpokAnimal found

11 methamphetamine (or paraphernalia) belonging to one of Ms. Murphy’s co-workers.

12 To avoid the consequences, she blamed Ms. Murphy (which Ms. Murphy adamantly

13 denies). But she was fired. The same friend blamed Ms. Murphy within their friend

14 group.

15 In short order, Ms. Murphy lost her job and her social circle. She spiraled.

16 According to Ms. Murphy, the addiction grew until she was using multiple times a day.

17 (Note: this is exactly consistent with Ms. Murphy’s criminal history. She had never

18 been arrested before age 30. 6

19
6 See PSR ¶ 47.

Sentencing Memo
–2–
Case 2:22-cr-00084-TOR ECF No. 58 filed 04/19/23 PageID.305 Page 4 of 8

1 And she cut ties to her family. Why? Ms. Murphy is clear: embarrassment.

2 Horrible, all-consuming embarrassment. Her parents raised her better than to be an

3 addict—and she knew it. She simply could not look her parents or siblings in the eye,

4 and so stopped communicating.

5 Here is the interesting thing about Ms. Murphy (and Mr. Murphy, for that

6 matter): she self-corrected. At the time of the offense, the Murphys were living with

7 Stephen’s mother, an addict herself who lived in a semi-typical dope house, replete

8 with addicts coming and going. But Stephen’s mother died, and the Murphys left her

9 house.

10 That was the moment to change. And they took it. As Ms. Murphy explained to

11 counsel, she and her husband simply recognized that they didn’t want to live in

12 addiction anymore. So they stopped.

13 Ms. Murphy explains that the real support was family—she reached out to her

14 family and re-engaged. She and Stephen began going to church and created a sober

15 support system.

16 And they grounded themselves in work. Stephen’s grandfather owns the Fort

17 Spokane Store and Restaurant7 in Davenport:

19
7 Here’s their website.

Sentencing Memo
–3–
Case 2:22-cr-00084-TOR ECF No. 58 filed 04/19/23 PageID.306 Page 5 of 8

8
Every day, Stephen and Stephanie get up, stock the shelves, prepare food, and
9
run the store. Indeed, today, when counsel sought to confirm a few items for this
10
memo, Ms. Murphy was in the store and had been cooking all morning. In fact, the
11
Murphys now live directly behind the restaurant.
12
They are intending to buy the store from Mr. Murphy’s grandparents but are
13
waiting on this sentencing—everything rides on the outcome of this case.
14
There is a point that the defense wants to ensure isn’t lost: the Murphys did
15
transformed their lives on their own motivation. Their rise out of addiction and return
16
to family and work and a regular life all occurred before they were federally charged,
17
arrested, or had any idea a prosecution was coming.
18

Sentencing Memo
–4–
Case 2:22-cr-00084-TOR ECF No. 58 filed 04/19/23 PageID.307 Page 6 of 8

1 This same sentiment—that Stephanie and Stephen intentionally rejoined their

2 families and community—is reflected in the support letters this Court will see,

3 including this from Leanne and Paul Weber:

8
We often see cases of truly remarkable reform—but it happens after someone is
9
arrested, conditions are imposed, and a supervising pretrial officer is watching. And
10
that is important. But here, the Murphys were self-motivated—they opted out of
11
addiction and into family and work of their own accord.
12
Second, the Murphys have shown that they can and will abide by this Court’s
13
conditions and pose no danger to the community. Before filing this memo, defense
14
counsel spoke with pretrial supervision officer Jon Bot. He confirmed that the Murphys
15
have been perfect pretrial supervisees. Consider this: according to Officer Bot, the
16
Murphys “randomly” stop by the probation office when they’re in Spokane on errands
17
and offer to give UAs.
18
Third, a time-served sentence is appropriate because, in this case, we run the
19
very real risk of imposing a sentence that would cause more harm than good. Ms.

Sentencing Memo
–5–
Case 2:22-cr-00084-TOR ECF No. 58 filed 04/19/23 PageID.308 Page 7 of 8

1 Murphy is away from addiction, away from crime, away from bad influences. To return

2 her to the jail is to place her back among the very problems she has already conquered.

3 We would accomplish little and risk much.

4 Fourth, Ms. Murphy’s guideline range is relatively low for a federal sentencing.

5 And if she backslides, if she returns to addiction or crime, this Court can immediately

6 revoke her supervision and impose a complete guideline sentence. Thus, in imposing a

7 time-served sentence, this Court wouldn’t risk the chance to impose a harsher

8 sentence if it becomes appropriate.

9 B. The Court should impose no financial penalties beyond the required
restitution.
10
Ms. Murphy requests imposition of $62,499 in restitution, owed jointly and
11
severally with her husband, and no other financial penalties.
12
III. Conclusion
13
For the reasons stated above, Stephanie Murphy respectfully requests a times-
14
served sentence and three-year supervised release.
15
Dated: April 19, 2023.
Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho
16
Attorneys for Stephanie Murphy
17
s/Colin G. Prince
Colin G. Prince, WSBA No. 43166
18
10 North Post Street, Suite 700
Spokane, Washington 99201
19
t: (509) 624-7606
f: (509) 747-3539

Sentencing Memo
–6–
Case 2:22-cr-00084-TOR ECF No. 58 filed 04/19/23 PageID.309 Page 8 of 8

2 Service Certificate

I certify that on April 19, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
3
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System, which will notify Assistant United
4
States Attorneys: Tyler Tournabene and Dan Fruchter.
5
s/Colin G. Prince
6
Colin G. Prince, WSBA No. 43166
10 North Post Street, Suite 700
7
Spokane, Washington 99201
8

Sentencing Memo
–7–

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.waed.99965.58.0.pdf
Size: 364,633 bytes
SHA-256: a5a4c16a43d495244a3537db1a660ea1e4c77d2e71f3e5e0ea89e59393426f26
Our copy: gov.uscourts.waed.99965.58.0.pdf
Original: No public link identified.