Pubdate: Tue, 21 Jun 2005
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Section: Pg A7
Copyright: 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.wsj.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/487
Author: Jess Bravin, Staff Reporter
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

HIGH COURT DECLINES TO CLARIFY SENTENCING-GUIDELINE DECISION

Justices Reject Petition Based On January Ruling; Not Chasing 'Squabbles'

The Supreme Court turned down a petition to clarify its January decision 
that invalidated U.S. mandatory sentencing guidelines, leaving federal 
circuit courts to make their own rules on the matter. The high court's move 
means federal inmates in some states will continue to have an easier time 
challenging their sentences than prisoners in others.

The January decision in U.S. v. Booker limited federal judges in punishing 
convicted defendants for aggravating factors that weren't proven to a jury 
or admitted by the defendant. That threw into turmoil sentences for 
thousands of inmates, many of whom petitioned for earlier release dates. 
The Supreme Court didn't specify how its opinion should be applied, leaving 
it up to the federal circuit courts of appeal, which supervise different 
groups of states.

Four circuits ruled that any sentence longer than the maximum allowed by 
the facts found by the jury or undisputed by the defendant usually would 
require new sentences. One circuit decided that the trial courts would have 
to decide whether resentencing was needed. Two other circuits concluded 
that inmates wouldn't receive lighter sentences unless they could show that 
they probably would have received a lighter sentence had the trial judge 
considered the federal sentencing guidelines to be advisory rather than 
mandatory.

Yesterday, the high court declined to hear the case of Vladimir Rodriguez, 
who was convicted of a federal drug dealing offense in Florida, within the 
jurisdiction of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, which 
applies the harsher resentencing standard. After that court upheld his 
109-month sentence, he appealed to the Supreme Court. The Justice 
Department supported the 11th Circuit's opinion, but asked the Supreme 
Court to hear the case to resolve the "deep and real" split among the 
appellate courts.

Four of the nine justices must agree before the high court will hear an 
appeal. In rejecting the Rodriguez case, the court made no decision on 
which interpretation is correct and could take up the question in a future 
appeal.

"The Supreme Court is saying it is not going to chase down the smaller 
squabbles in the wake of Blakely [a precursor case] and Booker, at least 
not yet," said Douglas Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University. 
"What they have to think about is which are the most important issues and 
what case is the proper vehicle."

With Chief Justice William Rehnquist presiding, the Supreme Court issued 
six opinions yesterday, but the term's most contentious decisions remain to 
be released, including cases involving display of the Ten Commandments on 
public property, the eminent-domain powers of local governments and the 
legality, challenged by the entertainment industry, of an Internet 
file-sharing system called Grokster. The court is next scheduled to issue 
rulings Thursday.

- --Gary Fields contributed to this article
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth