Federal Sentencing Guidelines

Facts of the Case

Freddie J. Booker was charged with possession with intent to distribute 50 g or more of crack cocaine. A jury found Mr. Booker guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after hearing testimony that he had 92.5 g of cocaine in his possession. During the posttrial sentencing hearing, the judge found additional facts by a preponderance of the evidence. These included that Mr. Booker possessed an additional 566 g of crack cocaine and was also guilty of obstruction of justice. The additional facts found at sentencing resulted in a mandated sentence of 360 months to life in prison, rather than the 210 to 262 months mandated for the amount of cocaine for which the jury found Mr. Booker guilty. The judge sentenced Mr. Booker to 30 years in prison, at the lower end of the mandated enhanced-sentencing range. Mr. Booker appealed his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. It found that the application of the Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment as addressed in Apprendi and in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), in which the Supreme Court held that “The ‘statutory maximum’ for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.” The case was remanded to the district (trial) court with instructions either to sentence Mr. Booker within the sentencing range supported by the jury's findings or to hold a separate sentencing hearing before a jury. The government filed for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the second case, Ducan Fanfan was charged with conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute at least 500 g of cocaine and was convicted by a jury. The maximum sentence mandated by the Guidelines based on the jury's findings was 78 months in prison. During sentencing, additional facts were presented, and the judge concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Fanfan had 2.5 kg of cocaine powder and 261.6 g of crack cocaine and was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the criminal activity. Based on the new information, the Guidelines mandated a sentence of 188 to 235 months’ incarceration. The sentencing judge, citing Blakely, sentenced Mr. Fanfan according to the Guidelines pertaining to the jury's findings. The government appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and filed a petition for certiorari before judgment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear both cases concurrently and identified two main issues in both cases: 1. Whether the Sixth Amendment is violated by the imposition of an enhanced sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on the sentencing judge's determination of a fact (other than a prior conviction) that was not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.2. If the answer to the first question is “yes,” the following question is presented: whether, in a case in which the Guidelines would require the court to find a sentence enhancing fact, the Sentencing Guidelines as a whole would be inapplicable, as a matter of severability analysis, such that the sentencing court must exercise its discretion to sentence the defendant within the maximum and minimum set by statute for the offense of conviction (Booker, 543 U.S. 220, p 1).

Ruling

In Booker and Fanfan, the Supreme Court held that an upward departure in sentencing, under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, based on a judge's determination of fact by a preponderance of the evidence, but not on facts that have been presented to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, constitutes a Sixth Amendment violation. The Court, to bring the Guidelines under compliance with the Sixth Amendment, severed and excised two sections of the Guidelines—the mandatory nature of the Guidelines and the appellate review standards.

The Court affirmed the ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded Mr. Booker's case to the trial court for sentencing under the new remedial Guidelines.

The Court ruled that the sentencing of Mr. Fanfan did not violate the Sixth Amendment, because Mr. Fanfan's sentence was based solely on the facts found by the jury. The Court, however, vacated the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for resentencing according to the amended Guidelines.

In addition, the Court held that its ruling applied to all cases on direct review and that the standard of review for appeals should be the reasonableness of the sentence.

Reasoning

The essence of this case encompasses the preservation of the right to a jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Judicial fact-finding during the sentencing process reduced the significance of the jury's determination by placing greater significance on sentence enhancements. The Court held that juries, not judges, must find facts relevant to sentencing if such facts are used to enhance sentences. Therefore, the Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment guarantee to jury trial with all elements of the alleged crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

To conform the Guidelines to the Sixth Amendment, the Court interpreted the original intent of the U.S. Congress when it enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 as striving for greater uniformity in federal sentencing by paying close attention to details of the crime and by sentencing offenders based on their real conduct. The Court considered two remedial options to bring the Guidelines in compliance with the Sixth Amendment: either the superimposition of the constitutional requirement of jury determination on the existing Guidelines or the elimination of provisions of the statute. The Court determined that the option of superimposing the constitutional requirement would create too complex a system and would create greater sentence disparity by preventing judges from relying on the presentencing report, which contained facts not heard by a jury, but related to the offender's circumstances. Therefore, the Court chose the second option and severed two provisions from the statute—the mandatory use of the Guidelines and the appellate review standards made explicit in the Guidelines. The Court ruled that a review for unreasonableness shall replace the explicit review standards. With these two provisions eliminated, the Guidelines would function constitutionally and with the original intent of Congress.

To continue to pursue greater uniformity after the severance and excision, the Court laid out factors to be considered by judges when imposing a sentence and referred to 18 USC § 3553(a): “The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” regarding the factors to be considered in imposing a sentence. The seven factors referred to are: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the sentencing range established (referring to the Guidelines); (5) any pertinent policy statement; (6) avoidance of unwarranted sentence disparities among similarly situated defendants with similar records; (7) and the need to provide restitution to victims.

Discussion

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 enacted by Congress created the Sentencing Commission that developed the ever-evolving Sentencing Guidelines. Undoubtedly, the goal of these Guidelines continues to be sentence uniformity with regard not only to the real conduct of the offender, but across federal courts. Widespread variability existed before the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and continues to this day. Though the Guidelines may not have accomplished judicial uniformity, they introduced a formal mechanism for introducing mental health factors. Under the Guidelines before this Court ruling, consideration of mental health factors pertinent to sentencing was specific and limited. Courts can now be more flexible with regard to sentencing without precisely meeting the mental health factor criteria addressed in the Guidelines. Despite the change in the Guidelines from mandatory to advisory, courts will still be more or less interested in mental health factors in sentencing. Forensic psychiatrists should be attuned to their respective courts’ interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision and the potential aggravating and/or mitigating nature of mental health factors. The advisory nature of the Guidelines and the unreasonableness standard for appeals may broaden the role of psychiatric testimony in both the sentencing and appeal processes.