February 12, 2013
DC Circuit works hard to figure out just what Freeman means for guideline retroactivityAn informed and thoughtful reader recommended to me today's interesting rulng by a DC Circuit panel in US v. Epps, No. 11-3002 (DC Cir. Feb 12, 2013) (available here). The Epps court, in a setting which one judge thought make the case moot, has to unpack the SCOTUS Freeman decision concerning plea agreements and guideline retroactivity. Among other interesting aspects of the case, the panel unpacks the important issue of which SCOTUS opinion controls when the Justices divide 4-1-4 . Here is how the Epps opinion gets started:
In Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (2011), the Supreme Court held that the district court is not categorically barred from reducing a defendant’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) where the defendant entered into a plea agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). The decision was splintered, however, with the plurality and concurring opinions adopting different reasoning. Prior to Freeman, the district court denied Ricardo Epps’ § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) sentence. United States v. Epps, 756 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D.D.C. 2010). Epps appeals, contending that there is no controlling opinion in Freeman and that because the district court (as well as the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement) relied upon the crack-cocaine Guidelines range when determining whether to accept the stipulated sentence, his sentence was imposed “based on” the Guidelines range and the district court was authorized under § 3582(c)(2) to reconsider and reduce his sentence in light of the Sentencing Commission’s reduction of the sentencing range applicable to him. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand the case to the district court.
February 12, 2013 at 04:19 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DC Circuit works hard to figure out just what Freeman means for guideline retroactivity:
Thank you to the D.C. Circuit. "Under Marks then, we conclude that there is no controlling opinion in Freeman because the plurality and concurring opinions do not share common reasoning whereby one analysis is a “logical subset." [of the other].
Exactly, yet Appellate circuits biased in favor of prosecutors (like the Eighth Circuit) quickly lined up to pronounce as the Court's ruling in Freeman Sotomayor's one-justice decision that the plea agreement decides whether a judge based a sentence on a guideline that was subsequently amended, despite the fact the pluarilty rejected Sotomayor's position. You absolutely need to spell this out, Doug.
Posted by: DCH | Feb 13, 2013 12:33:53 PM