Tagged: retroactivity

U.S. Sentencing Commission Approves Amendment to Federal Sentencing Guidelines

The United States Sentencing Commission has recently approved an amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, “Drugs Minus Two,” which would reduce the sentencing guideline levels applicable to most federal drug trafficking offenses. Specifically, the amendment works to lower the base offense levels in the Drug Quantity Table prescribed under §2D1.1(c)(1) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual, which may ultimately result in a lower guideline sentencing range for many defendants sentenced under federal trafficking penalties.

The Sentencing Commission has voted to apply the amendment retroactively after determining that “setting the base offense levels above mandatory minimum penalties is no longer necessary and that a reduction would be an appropriate step toward alleviating the overcapacity of the federal prisons.” The Commission’s proposal was consistent with its obligation to formulate guidelines to “minimize the likelihood that the Federal prison population will exceed the capacity of the Federal prisons. 28 U.S.C. § 994(g).

According to the Commission, there are an “estimated 46,000 offenders that may benefit from retroactive application of Amendment 782 subject to the limitation in §1B1.10 (e), and the average sentence reduction would be approximately 18 percent.”

The Chair of the Sentencing Commission, Judge Patti B. Saris, stated that “the amendment received unanimous support from Commissioners because it is a measured approach. It reduces prison costs and populations and responds to statutory and guidelines changes since the drug guidelines were initially developed, while safeguarding public safety.”

The amendment will likely go into retroactive effect beginning November 1, 2015, unless Congress disapproves of the amendment. Congress has until November 1, 2014 to make its decision. If upheld, federal prisoners may begin to petition the courts pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (C) (2) seeking a sentencing modification based upon the new guideline ranges.

Sources:

Waiver of Youthful Offender Treatment Invalid?

As many of you may know, in June of 2013 the New York Court of Appeals held that a sentencing court must consider the eligibility of a qualifying defendant for youthful offender treatment even if the defendant ostensibly waives that right by failing to request it, as part of a negotiated guilty plea, or as a waiver of the right to appeal.  The Court so held in People v. Rudolph, overruling its 1977 decision in People v. McGowen.

This decision may help Kyle Freda, who waived the right to youthful offender treatment as part of a negotiated plea, and whose attorney did not file a notice of appeal in light of that waiver.   An application to the Appellate Division, Third Department for permission to file a late notice of appeal was granted.  That Court remanded the case to the sentencing court, which has scheduled a sentencing hearing.  While the Rudolph Court made clear that the decision was not retroactive, it does apply to all cases that were on direct appeal as of June 2013.

These decisions may have important consequences in parts of the states where  non-YO guilty pleas are regularly negotiated.

People v. Rudolph, 21 N.Y.3d 497, __ N.E.2d __, 2013 Slip Op. 04840 (June 27, 2013).
People v. McGowen, 42 N.Y.2d 905, 366 N.E.2d 1347, 397 N.Y.S.2d 993 (1977).