Supreme Court Sidesteps Sentencing Appeals Issue

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the doors for hundreds of federal inmates to appeal their sentences when it ruled that federal sentencing guidelines, in place since 1987, were unconstitutional. This week, the court refused to rule on whether those inmates can automatical appeal for reduced sentences.

Since the January 12 ruling, federal appeals courts have been divided on the issue, with some courts allowing automatic appeals and some courts not. Both sides have urged the Supreme Court to rule on the issue, but Monday the court refused to consider a case that addressed the sentencing issue.

The court let stand a lower court's decision that turned down Vladimir Rodriquez's appeal of his nine-year drug sentence. The sentencing judge increased his sentence from six to nine years when he determined Rodriquez was responsible for transporting 30,000 Ecstasy pills, instead of the 2,000 the jury had convicted him of transporting.

This "finding of fact" by the judge, instead of the jury, was the reason the Supreme Court in January ruled that the federal sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional, because a judge, not a jury, made factual determinations that affected length of sentences.

However, without comment, the court let the lower court ruling against Rodriquez stand. The decision leaves the federal appeals courts without guidelines to deal with hundreds of expected appeals.

See Also:
High Court Declines to Rule on Sentencing

Background:
Court Says Sentencing Guidelines Not Mandatory