|
|
| Ruling lets inmates challenge sentences |
| By Associated Press |
| Published: 06/02/2005 |
|
Thousands of inmates doing federal time in Washington and eight other Western states won a chance to challenge their sentences under an appeals-court ruling yesterday. The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is part of the continuing fallout from a controversial Supreme Court decision that struck down part of the federal sentencing system. To eliminate disparities in federal sentences across the country, Congress in 1987 imposed guidelines instructing judges to raise or lower sentences based on factors such as the amount of money or drugs that changed hands in a narcotics case. The high court in a January decision, U.S. v. Booker, however, ruled that only a jury could determine facts used to set penalties. Judges, however, were allowed to continue to consult the guidelines on an advisory basis. However, the Booker ruling was far from clear on how lower courts should treat the cases of prisoners already sentenced under the guidelines. Some federal appeals courts have adopted a strict standard for defendants to win resentencing, though other appellate courts adopted a more liberal yardstick. In its 7-4 ruling yesterday, the 9th Circuit said the only reasonable way to ensure the high court's wishes are followed is to allow all federal inmates whose convictions are on appeal to challenge their sentences. The court estimated that number in "perhaps the thousands." The dissenting judges said the decision would prompt a flood of appeals. The Supreme Court's ruling was meant to cure constitutional deficiencies when judges, in setting sentences, consider facts a jury did not decide at trial. Though juries usually consider a person's guilt or innocence, judges have used other factors - such as the amount of drugs involved in a crime or the number of victims in a fraud - to add years to someone's sentence. The case before the 9th Circuit involved Alfred Ameline, who was sentenced to 12 1/2 years in 2002 after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in Great Falls, Mont. He did not admit any amount of drugs, but the judge accepted it was 1,603 grams based on claims by the government. Using that drug weight and other factors, the sentencing range was 135 to 168 months; the judge chose the middle ground. Now a judge is free to resentence Ameline as if that guideline range were not mandatory. His attorney suggested Ameline should be sentenced to about two years because the judge wrongly concluded the quantity of drugs. The Justice Department, which fought resentencing Ameline, declined to comment. |
Comments:
Login to let us know what you think
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
تحميل لعبة pubg