Supreme Court Rules Judges Don’t Have to Warn of Tougher Sentences
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that judges don’t have to warn defendants when they are considering a sentence tougher than recommended in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
The court ruled in the case of Richard Irizarry, sentenced to 60 months in prison for threatening to kill his ex-wife and her relatives, the Associated Press reports. The sentence was nine months longer than the maximum in the guidelines.
The majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens interpreted a federal rule enacted before the Supreme Court found that the guidelines are no longer mandatory. The rule required notification of a departure from the guidelines.
The rule was based on a sentencing expectation created by mandatory guidelines that is no longer at play now that the guidelines are advisory, Stevens wrote. The sentence in Irizarry’s case was a variance from the advisory guidelines, rather than a departure as the term was used to indicate sentences imposed under the mandatory guidelines framework, he said.
The opinion said there may be some case in which the factual basis for a sentence will come as a complete surprise, and a judge should consider granting a continuance if a party legitimately complains the surprise is prejudicial.
The four dissenters, in an opinion by Justice Steven G. Breyer, disagree with the majority’s distinction between a variance from advisory guidelines and a departure within mandatory guidelines. “The court creates a legal distinction without much of a difference,” the dissent says.
The case is Irizarry v. U.S. (PDF posted by SCOTUSblog).
