Summary
The Supreme Court held that the mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment insofar as they allowed judges to impose sentences based on facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Applying its decision in Blakely v. Washington, the Court concluded that the Guidelines' mandatory provisions could not constitutionally operate in that manner. In a separate remedial opinion, the Court invalidated the provisions making the Guidelines mandatory and rendered them advisory.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Sixth Amendment permits a sentencing judge to impose an enhanced sentence under the mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines based on facts, other than a prior conviction, that were not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.
- Whether the mandatory provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act and the Guidelines could be severed or excised to remedy the constitutional violation.
- What appellate standard should govern federal sentencing review after the mandatory Guidelines provisions are excised.
- Whether the Court's holdings applied to cases pending on direct review.
Holdings
- The Sixth Amendment is violated when a sentencing judge, applying the mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines, finds a fact other than a prior conviction that increases the defendant's sentence beyond the maximum authorized by the facts established by the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.
- The mandatory provision of the Sentencing Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1), and the related appellate-review provision, § 3742(e), must be severed and excised, leaving the Guidelines advisory.
- Federal sentencing courts must consider the Guidelines and the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), but the Guidelines are advisory; courts of appeals review sentences for reasonableness.
- Booker's judgment was affirmed and remanded for resentencing; Fanfan's judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings; the holdings apply to cases pending on direct review.
Key quotations
“Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” (at 244)
“So modified, the federal sentencing statute, see Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Sentencing Act), as amended, 18 U. S. C. § 3551 et seq., 28 U. S. C. § 991 et seq., makes the Guidelines effectively advisory.” (at 245-246)
“We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case.” (at 267)
Factual background
Booker's jury found that he possessed 92.5 grams of crack cocaine, but the sentencing judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that he possessed an additional 566 grams and obstructed justice. Those judicial findings increased his mandatory Guidelines range from 210-262 months to 360 months to life, and the judge imposed 360 months. Fanfan's jury found him responsible for at least 500 grams of cocaine, while the judge found additional drug quantities and a leadership role that would have increased the Guidelines range substantially; the district court instead imposed a sentence authorized by the jury verdict alone.
Procedural history
Booker was convicted in federal district court of possessing at least 50 grams of crack cocaine with intent to distribute and received a 360-month sentence after the judge found additional drug quantity and obstruction facts by a preponderance of the evidence. The Seventh Circuit held that the sentence violated the Sixth Amendment under Apprendi and Blakely, vacated the sentence, and remanded. Fanfan was convicted of a cocaine-distribution conspiracy; the district court declined to impose the higher Guidelines sentence based on judicially found facts, and the Government sought certiorari before judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed Booker's appellate judgment, vacated Fanfan's district-court judgment, and remanded both cases.
Remand instructions
Booker was remanded for resentencing under the advisory-Guidelines system and the standards stated in the opinions. Fanfan was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinions, including possible resentencing at the election of the Government or defendant. Sentences on direct review were to receive the benefit of the Sixth Amendment holding and remedial interpretation, subject to ordinary doctrines such as plain error and harmless error.