In a surprising development, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday declined to clarify its its decision earlier this year in U.S. v. Booker (previous posts here), in which the Court struck down the mandatory nature of the federal criminal sentencing system. Without comment, the Supreme Court declined to hear a new case — Rodriguez v. U.S. — even though the Justice Department had recommended last week in a parallel case (U.S. v. Barnett) that the Court adjudicate the issue in the case, which is whether a criminal sentence that violates Booker’s constitutional principle is “plain error” and must be overturned.
U.S. v. Booker limits federal judges in punishing convicted defendants for aggravating factors that were not proven to a jury or that the defendant did not admit. That decision threw the federal sentencing system into a bit of a kerfuffle as thousands of inmates challenged their sentences and many petitioned for earlier release dates. In Booker, the Supreme Court did not specify how the decision should be should be applied, so the federal circuit courts of appeal have been supervising application of the decision.
Four circuits have ruled that any sentence longer than the maximum allowed under the jury’s findings of fact or the defendant’s admissions usually would require a new sentences. One circuit decided that the trial courts would have to decide whether resentencing was needed, and two other circuits concluded that defendants would not be entitled to a rehearing on their sentences unless they could show that the trial court would have handed down a lighter sentence had the federal sentencing guidelines been deemed to be advisory rather than mandatory. Consequently, there is a clear conflict at this point among the circuit courts on how Booker is to be applied to previous sentences.
The best source for detailed analysis of these Booker-related decisions and issues is Professor Berman’s blog, where he has already commented on yesterday’s developments here and here.