FELON'S CASE JOINS DEBATE OVER FEDERAL SENTENCES

Berkeley County reserve deputy Pete Porter spotted a familiar name more
than a year ago while he scoured a pawn shop for stolen goods.

In the files of Money Man Pawn in Moncks Corner, Porter saw an entry that
the store purchased a .22-caliber pistol in May 2001 from St. Stephen
resident Johnnie Elvin McKelvey, convicted twice for burglary and escaping
from a Georgia chain gang.

It was not an unusual find for Porter, whose searches often uncover hot
property and bad people.

But for McKelvey, a three-time convicted felon, it was a day that makes him
one more example in the national debate over the fairness of federal court
sentences set by Congress.

Porter reported his discovery to federal agents. On Tuesday, McKelvey,
classified as an "armed career criminal," was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

The sentence was based on McKelvey's three felony convictions that the
court classifies as violent crimes, even though he was not armed and no one
was hurt.

McKelvey, 40, pleaded guilty to possessing a gun that a relative gave him.
He sold it to the pawn shop for $22.

If he had been prosecuted in state court, as a convicted felon with a gun,
McKelvey would have faced a maximum of five years in prison.

In federal court, 15 years was the minimum sentence U.S. District Judge
David C. Norton was allowed to give. The maximum was life.

For the crime, it was a substantial sentence, Norton said Wednesday. But
the judge added: "I didn't sentence him. Congress sentenced him."

McKelvey's attorney, Bob Haley, also felt helpless. "With the mandatory
minimum sentence, this is one of those cases where a defense attorney has
no options," he said.

McKelvey's sentence comes at a time when some federal judges are
questioning the fairness of mandatory minimums, resulting in prison terms
that are disproportionately stiffer than the crimes people commit.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recently said mandatory minimum
sentences block judicial discretion, resulting in some long prison terms
for relatively minor or nonviolent crimes.

As he sentenced McKelvey, Norton said: "I have a tendency to agree with
Justice Kennedy on this one."Andy Siegel, an assistant professor at the
University of South Carolina School of Law, said mandatory minimums create
a fundamental unfairness that forces judges to ignore relevant differences
and treat people who are only superficially similar as if they were equally
dangerous.

U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. said McKelvey's sentence was appropriate
given his criminal history that includes convictions for cocaine
possession, receiving stolen goods and petty theft.

McKelvey's prosecution was part of Project Cease Fire in South Carolina,
which aggressively locks up those who carry illegal weapons or use them
during crimes, Thurmond said. Although no figures were available, Thurmond
said the program, which was implemented in January 2002, has more than
doubled the number of weapons convictions.

"We believe there is a violent predator criminal out there that is
committing a disproportionate amount of the violent crime in South
Carolina," he said. "We are seeking to target those who are committing
violent crime and weed them out of our communities."

Haley agrees that Congress intended the law to go after the "violent
predator criminal. However, if one reviews the facts of this case, it is
clear that Johnnie McKelvey is not a violent predator criminal."

The law has been used against a man who "simply pawned a $22 handgun that
had been in his possession," Haley said.

"When you use the phrase violent offense, I think most people would define
it as murder, rape, bank robbery and assault with a weapon," he said. In
McKelvey's case, he was convicted of running away in 1996 from a trash
detail on a chain gang in Woodbine, Ga., and breaking into unoccupied homes
in Florida in 1989 and in Moncks Corner in 1993, he said. "The armed career
criminal statute has been construed by the court to include those
activities," he said.

"This issue is not should McKelvey be punished," Haley said. "There is a
law and you don't break the law and, if you do, you ought to be punished.
The issue is, under circumstances like this, should you spend 15 years in a
federal prison?"