By AVA TURNQUEST
Tribune Digital Editor
aturnquest@tribunemedia.net
COURT of Appeal judges have dismissed an American man’s attempt to challenge his prison sentence for importing marijuana into The Bahamas.
In a written decision delivered last week, the Court of Appeal rejected an application by Tyrell Alsup for an extension of time to appeal his sentence, ruling that the punishment imposed was neither excessive nor wrong in principle.
Alsup was arrested after arriving in The Bahamas from Fort Lauderdale on January 21, 2024, carrying two suitcases containing 75.4 pounds of marijuana. He pleaded guilty to importation of dangerous drugs, conspiracy to import dangerous drugs, and possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply.
Magistrate Samuel McKinney sentenced Alsup to two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment on each charge, to run concurrently. On the importation count, Alsup was also fined $20,000 or, in default of payment, ordered to serve an additional six months in prison.
From prison, Alsup later sought to appeal the sentence, filing a handwritten application more than a year after the deadline. He argued that the sentence was unduly severe, particularly the fine, citing his lack of financial means, foreign status, absence of family in The Bahamas, and early guilty plea.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged that Alsup had experienced delays in securing legal assistance but ruled that the decisive issue was whether his proposed appeal had any realistic prospect of success.
Delivering the reasons for decision, Chief Justice Sir Ian Winder said the court found no error in principle in the magistrate’s sentencing approach. He noted that appellate courts will not interfere with a sentence merely because it is harsh unless a legal mistake has been shown.
The judgment held that the effective three-year sentence, which reflected the custodial term and possible additional imprisonment for non-payment of the fine, fell within an accepted sentencing range of two to five years for similar offences.
Sir Ian also rejected Alsup’s reliance on earlier appellate cases in which fines were overturned, explaining that those decisions turned on specific concessions made by prosecutors and did not establish a general requirement for magistrates to assess a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing a fine.
“The proposed grounds of appeal had no prospects of success,” the court ruled, adding that strong deterrent sentences for drug importation offences remain necessary given their social impact.
As a result, the application for an extension of time was dismissed and the original sentences were upheld.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.