Is an error in applying the notoriously complex Federal Sentencing Guidelines appealable if nobody notices the error in the trial court? Generally yes, the U.S. Supreme Court decided today in Rosales-Mireles v. United States, No. 16-9493.
The general rule in litigation is that you have to raise an objection at the proper time or else you lose it, the "speak now or forever hold your peace" rule. There are exceptions to the general rule, and criminal defendants get more breaks than other litigants, in part because the consequences of an attorney error in a criminal case are typically not remedied by going after the lawyer and insurer in a malpractice action. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) provides, "A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court's attention." There is a large body of case law putting meat on that bone. The word "may" implies discretion, but the case law puts boundaries on that discretion. Here is today's holding in a nutshell:
This case concerns the bounds of that discretion, and whether a miscalculation of the United States Sentencing Guidelines range, that has been determined to be plain and to affect a defendant's substantial rights, calls for a court of appeals to exercise its discretion under Rule 52(b) to vacate the defendant's sentence. The Court holds that such an error will in the ordinary case, as here, seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, and thus will warrant relief.
The opinion is by Justice Sotomayor (7-2). Justice Thomas dissents, joined by Justice Alito.
The Court also decided another very technical federal sentencing case, Chavez-Meza v. United States, No. 17-5639.
This case has to do with the amount of detail federal judges must give for their sentencing choices.
This case concerns a criminal drug offender originally sentenced in accordance with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Subsequently, the Sentencing Commission lowered the applicable Guidelines sentencing range; the offender asked for a sentence reduction in light of the lowered range; and the District Judge reduced his original sentence from 135 months' imprisonment to 114 months'. The offender, believing he should have obtained a yet greater reduction, argues that the District Judge did not adequately explain why he imposed a sentence of 114 months rather than a lower sentence. The Court of Appeals held that the judge's explanation was adequate. And we agree with the Court of Appeals.
Opinion by Justice Breyer (5-3), dissent by Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Gorsuch recused.
Leave a comment