The ramifications of the Blakeley case heard by the Supreme Court. Basically, a jury decides if a convicted criminal has his sentence enhanced, not a judge.
_________________________________________
Prison sentence rule is voided
Federal court orders new terms for hundreds of crooks.
By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer - (Published July 22, 2004)
MONTEREY - An appeals court Wednesday ordered resentencing of hundreds of criminals in the Western states, striking down an aspect of the standard procedure used by federal trial judges to set prison terms.
Lawyers said thousands of other defendants awaiting trial or sentencing from Montana to Guam also would be affected by the decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which bars judges from increasing sentences on the basis of factors not found by a jury to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Under the federal sentencing guidelines, in effect for the past 20 years, judges have had the power to decide whether "a preponderance of evidence" indicated defendants were involved with large quantities of illegal drugs or firearms, for example, and boost sentences accordingly.
The U.S. Supreme Court cast doubt on that system in June, when it declared a similar sentencing law used by Washington state to be a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to trial by a jury.
Since then, federal and state judges across the nation have been scrambling to assess the full import of the high court's ruling not only for federal sentencing procedures but also for procedures used in many states' courts, including California.
"This is huge," Sacramento criminal defense lawyer David W. Dratman said of the 9th Circuit's decision.
But Dratman joined other lawyers in predicting it wouldn't be the final word.
The decision came in the case of Alfred Ameline, sentenced by a federal trial judge in Montana for conspiring to distribute what the judge determined to be 1,603.6 grams of methamphetamine.
Ameline had pleaded guilty but admitted to having only a "detectable" amount of the drug, for which the specified sentencing is 10 to 16 months.
The 9th Circuit court returned his case to the trial judge for resentencing. Circuit Judge Richard Paez of Pasadena wrote that Ameline had a right to have a jury determine the amount of drugs. Judge Kim Wardlaw, also of Pasadena, agreed.
Judge Ronald Gould of Seattle dissented, saying that "20 years of sentence reform" should not be swept away until the Supreme Court expressly says so.
The decision added to a rising clamor for prompt guidance from the high court.
A majority of the dozen or so trial and appellate courts ruling on the federal guidelines in the past month have found them to be invalid in whole or in part.
"We're all in a state of limbo" while waiting for Supreme Court direction, said McGregor Scott, the U.S. attorney in Sacramento. He said indictments filed by his office in the past month have taken the June ruling in the Washington state case into account.
He was unable to say immediately what the effect of Wednesday's decision would be on older cases.
The 9th Circuit outlined several scenarios. A trial under way may be split into guilt and penalty phases using the same jury or using a separate one to consider sentencing factors.
A case currently on appeal would go back to the trial judges, who may either resentence without considering factors not proved to a jury or convene a new jury to consider only those factors.
Quin Denvir, the federal public defender in Sacramento, said he would work with Scott's office "to try to devise some means of incorporating these new rules."
He said hundreds of cases in the Sacramento region would be affected.
He called the 9th Circuit decision "a real vindication of the jury trial right and the right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
His counterparts throughout the Western states largely agreed.
The decision assures, said Shawn Halbert, the federal public defender in Oakland, that "the person gets sentenced based on the conduct that is actually found to be committed."
Federal prosecutors were not pleased, however. The decision rejected their position that the federal sentencing guidelines must be either upheld or struck down in their entirety.
Also Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it was seeking expedited review of the issue by the Supreme Court in cases from the 7th Circuit in Chicago and a district court in Maine.
The California Supreme Court voted last week to consider whether the state's sentencing system is valid in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Washington state case.
_________________________________________
Prison sentence rule is voided
Federal court orders new terms for hundreds of crooks.
By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer - (Published July 22, 2004)
MONTEREY - An appeals court Wednesday ordered resentencing of hundreds of criminals in the Western states, striking down an aspect of the standard procedure used by federal trial judges to set prison terms.
Lawyers said thousands of other defendants awaiting trial or sentencing from Montana to Guam also would be affected by the decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which bars judges from increasing sentences on the basis of factors not found by a jury to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Under the federal sentencing guidelines, in effect for the past 20 years, judges have had the power to decide whether "a preponderance of evidence" indicated defendants were involved with large quantities of illegal drugs or firearms, for example, and boost sentences accordingly.
The U.S. Supreme Court cast doubt on that system in June, when it declared a similar sentencing law used by Washington state to be a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to trial by a jury.
Since then, federal and state judges across the nation have been scrambling to assess the full import of the high court's ruling not only for federal sentencing procedures but also for procedures used in many states' courts, including California.
"This is huge," Sacramento criminal defense lawyer David W. Dratman said of the 9th Circuit's decision.
But Dratman joined other lawyers in predicting it wouldn't be the final word.
The decision came in the case of Alfred Ameline, sentenced by a federal trial judge in Montana for conspiring to distribute what the judge determined to be 1,603.6 grams of methamphetamine.
Ameline had pleaded guilty but admitted to having only a "detectable" amount of the drug, for which the specified sentencing is 10 to 16 months.
The 9th Circuit court returned his case to the trial judge for resentencing. Circuit Judge Richard Paez of Pasadena wrote that Ameline had a right to have a jury determine the amount of drugs. Judge Kim Wardlaw, also of Pasadena, agreed.
Judge Ronald Gould of Seattle dissented, saying that "20 years of sentence reform" should not be swept away until the Supreme Court expressly says so.
The decision added to a rising clamor for prompt guidance from the high court.
A majority of the dozen or so trial and appellate courts ruling on the federal guidelines in the past month have found them to be invalid in whole or in part.
"We're all in a state of limbo" while waiting for Supreme Court direction, said McGregor Scott, the U.S. attorney in Sacramento. He said indictments filed by his office in the past month have taken the June ruling in the Washington state case into account.
He was unable to say immediately what the effect of Wednesday's decision would be on older cases.
The 9th Circuit outlined several scenarios. A trial under way may be split into guilt and penalty phases using the same jury or using a separate one to consider sentencing factors.
A case currently on appeal would go back to the trial judges, who may either resentence without considering factors not proved to a jury or convene a new jury to consider only those factors.
Quin Denvir, the federal public defender in Sacramento, said he would work with Scott's office "to try to devise some means of incorporating these new rules."
He said hundreds of cases in the Sacramento region would be affected.
He called the 9th Circuit decision "a real vindication of the jury trial right and the right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
His counterparts throughout the Western states largely agreed.
The decision assures, said Shawn Halbert, the federal public defender in Oakland, that "the person gets sentenced based on the conduct that is actually found to be committed."
Federal prosecutors were not pleased, however. The decision rejected their position that the federal sentencing guidelines must be either upheld or struck down in their entirety.
Also Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it was seeking expedited review of the issue by the Supreme Court in cases from the 7th Circuit in Chicago and a district court in Maine.
The California Supreme Court voted last week to consider whether the state's sentencing system is valid in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Washington state case.
