June 10, 2013
Guidelines are "the lodestone" of federal sentencing (as well as "the starting point and the initial benchmark")The title of this post is drawn from the key word in a key paragraph that captured my attention in what is otherwise a straight-forward opinion by the Supreme Court today in Peugh (basics here). Here is the context from a paragraph that effectively summarizes the conclusions of the Peugh majority opinion per Justice Sotomayor:
Major kudos to Justice Sotomayor for adding a fitting new term to the post-Booker federal sentencing lexicon. Kudos also to the majority Court for stressing these enduring modern federal sentencing realities in the course of reaching its conclusions:
"The federal system adopts procedural measures intended to make the Guidelines the lodestone of sentencing. A retrospective increase in the Guidelines range applicable to a defendant creates a sufficient risk of a higher sentence to constitute an ex post facto violation."
When Peugh committed his crime, the recommended sentence was 30 to 37 months. When he was sentenced, it was 70 to 87 months.... Such a retrospective increase in the measure of punishment raises clear ex post facto concerns. We have previously recognized, for instance, that a defendant charged with an increased punishment for his crime is likely to feel enhanced pressure to plead guilty. See Carmell, 529 U.S., at 534, n.24; Weaver, 450 U.S., at 32. This pressure does not disappear simply because the Guidelines range is advisory; the defendant will be aware that the range is intended to, and usually does, exert controlling influence on the sentence that the court will impose....
On the Government’s account, the Guidelines are just one among many persuasive sources a sentencing court can consult, no different from a “policy paper.” Brief for United States 28. The Government’s argument fails to acknowledge, however, that district courts are not required to consult any policy paper in order to avoid reversible procedural error; nor must they “consider the extent of [their] deviation” from a given policy paper and “ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance,” Gall, 552 U.S., at 50. Courts of appeals, in turn, are not permitted to presume that a sentence that comports with a particular policy paper is reasonable; nor do courts of appeals, in considering whether the district court’s sentence was reasonable, weigh the extent of any departure from a given policy paper in determining whether the district court abused its discretion, see id., at 51. It is simply not the case that the Sentencing Guidelines are merely a volume that the district court reads with academic interest in the course of sentencing.
And kudos also to Justice Thomas for providing a slightly competing vision of the post-Booker world via passages in his dissent like the following that, I suspect, will end up in many more defense sentencing submissions than government ones:
[T]he Guidelines do not constrain the discretion of district courts and, thus, have no legal effect on a defendant’s sentence. Second, to the extent that the amended Guidelines create a risk that a defendant might receive a harsher punishment, that risk results from the Guidelines’ persuasive force, not any legal effect....
Petitioner next argues that the Guidelines limit district court discretion because sentences falling outside the Guidelines are more likely to be reversed for substantive unreasonableness. Brief for Petitioner 25. I doubt, however, that reversal is a likely outcome when a district judge can justify his sentence based on agreement with either of two Guidelines — the old or the new. If a district court calculated the sentencing range under the new Guidelines but sentenced the defendant to a below-Guidelines sentence that fell within the range provided by the old Guidelines, it would be difficult to label such a sentence “substantively unreasonable.” To do so would cast doubt on every within-Guidelines sentence issued under the old Guidelines.
I have long suggested that defense attorneys regularly and in every case calculate, and submit to a sentencing court prior to sentencing, the "old" sentencing ranges that would have applied under the original 1987 version of the federal sentencing guidelines which were first promulgated by the original US Sentencing Commission. The above-quoted passages from Justice Thomas now would enable sentencing courts to feel confident that a sentence within the range suggested by the 1987 guidelines should nearly always be deemed reasonable.
June 10, 2013 at 10:46 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Guidelines are "the lodestone" of federal sentencing (as well as "the starting point and the initial benchmark"):
Did she really mean "lodestone"? Or "lodestar"?
Posted by: Reader | Jun 10, 2013 12:19:57 PM
LOL prof Berman! the 87 guidelines! For anyone that has ever done an evolving guideline, ratcheting up, etc sentencing memo they know why I slapped my knee when I read that.
Posted by: KRG | Jun 10, 2013 2:45:17 PM
This would probably be one of the few times that anyone on the defense side can find aid and comfort in Justice Thomas's words -- but I think it is important to recognize that he was writing in dissent.
Posted by: Late Inning Relief | Jun 10, 2013 4:11:11 PM
The difference between the majority and dissent can be found by the difference between legal theory and legal realism/practice.
I THEORY, the dissent is correct. Put another way, in theory, "[t]he Federal Sentencing Guidelines do not constrain the discretion of district courts." (Dissent Op. at 2).
However, in PRACTICE, anyone who knows how federal sentencing really works post-Booker knows that the majority had the better (more realistic) analysis. Put another way, the reality of the situation is that an increase in a defendant's guidelines range creates "a significant risk" (if not an almost certain risk) of a higher sentence.
Posted by: DEJ | Jun 10, 2013 8:38:02 PM
As to theory v. practice, I wonder if Sotomayor's experience as a prosecutor and district/appellate judge influenced her judgment here.
Posted by: Joe | Jun 11, 2013 12:08:51 PM