Chapter 14Sentencing and Appeals

History of Sentencing in the U.S. old English common law punished felonies with the

death penalty old English common law punished misdemeanors with

public floggings such penalties were brought to the American colonies Bill of Rights (Eighth Amendment) prohibited cruel and

unusual punishment Benjamin Rush: “house of reform” New York adopted a modified form of indeterminate

sentencing

Criminal Punishment

George P. Fletcher: a violation of the rule results in the imposition of punishment by a court

Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez concern that a law may be considered criminal

punishment

Purposes of Punishment retribution

imposes punishment based on just deserts offenders should receive the punishment that they deserve

based on the seriousness of their criminal acts deterrence

specific deterrence imposes punishment to deter or discourage a defendant from committing a crime in the future

general deterrence punishes an offender as an example to deter others from violating the law

rehabilitation intended to reform the offender and to transform him/her into

a law-abiding and productive member of society appeals to the idealistic notion that people are essentially good

and can transform their lives when encouraged and given support

Purposes (cont.) incapacitation

the removal of offenders from society to prevent them from continuing to menace others

selective incapacitation singles out offenders who have committed certain serious offenses for lengthy incarceration

restoration stresses the harm caused to victims of crime requires offenders to engage in financial restitution and

community service to compensate the victim and the community and to “make them whole once again”

Type of Punishment imprisonment fines probation intermediate sanctions death

Approaches to Sentencing

determinate sentences mandatory minimum sentences intermediate sentences presumptive sentencing guidelines

Judicial Sentencing Process

often filed by a probation officer contains information regarding the defendant,

including his/her criminal record and financial condition and other circumstances that may influence the defendant’s future behavior

addresses aggravating and mitigating circumstances

sentencing hearings right of allocution consecutive vs. concurrent sentences clemency vs. pardon

Sentencing Guidelines 1984 Sentencing Reform Act sentences under the federal guidelines are based on a

complicated formula that reflects the seriousness and characteristics of the offense and the criminal history of the offender

judges employ a sentencing grid and must sentence an offender within the narrow range where the offender’s criminal offense and criminal history intersect

judges are required to document the reasons for criminal sentences and are obligated to provide a specific reason for an upward or downward departure from the sentenced authorized by the guidelines

Sentencing Guidelines (cont.) federal guidelines are much more complicated than most state

guidelines unconstitutional to enhance a sentence based on facts found

to exist by the judge by a preponderance of the evidence rather than by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt

federal and state sentencing guidelines are advisory, not mandatory

Determinate Sentences controversy over the Anti–Drug Abuse Act of

1986 criticisms of determinate sentences

inflexibility plea bargaining increase in prison population disparate effects

Hutto v. Davis

Methods of Punishment most courts have not limited cruel and unusual

punishment to acts condemned at the time of passage of the Eighth Amendment but have viewed it as an evolving concept

Furman v. Georgia controversies over capital punishment and its

various methods of implementation

Capital Punishment Furman v. Georgia

“punishment must not be excessive” punishment must “fit the crime” punishment is to be imposed in an “evenhanded,

nonselective, and nonarbitrary” manner Woodson v. North Carolina Gregg v. Georgia

aggravating circumstances mitigating circumstances

weighing states vs. nonweighing states

Eighth Amendment and Sentences for a Term of Years the length of a criminal sentence is the

province of elected state legislators judicial intervention to review the

“proportionality” of a sentence for a term of years should be “extremely rare” and should be limited to criminal sentences that are “grossly disproportionate” to the seriousness of the offense

three strikes laws

Equal Protection

it is unconstitutional for a judge to base a sentence on a defendant’s race, gender, ethnicity, or nationality

a sentence should be based on defendant’s act rather than on a defendant’s identity

a defendant must demonstrate both a discriminatory impact and a discriminatory intent

Criminal Appeals no due process right to appeal courts routinely express a belief in the need for

appeals Griffin v. Illinois final judgement rule interlocutory appeals plain error exception harmless error standard Chapman v. United States automatic reversal rule retroactivity

Habeas Corups collateral remedies a civil lawsuit in which the defendant (now called the

petitioner or plaintiff) asks the court for a writ on the grounds that he/she is being unlawfully detained

William Blackstone: habeas corpus is “the most celebrated writ in the English law”

Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the Public Safety may require it”

Fay v. Noia Justice Powell, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte: the costs of

federal courts engaging in active habeas corpus review Stone v. Powell

Requirements for Bringing a Habeas Corpus Claim

plaintiff must allege a violation of a federal constitutional right or a violation of federal law

the individual on whose behalf the petition is filed must be in custody

AEDPA: a state prisoner file a petition in federal district court “within a year of the final State court review of the conviction and sentence . . . or the expiration of the time for seeking such review”

the plaintiff must exhaust state remedies before filing a petition for habeas corpus

Requirements for Habeas Corpus (cont.)

whether the state court decision on the law and the facts is reasonable

a district court decides the case based on the written trial record and on the written judgments of the state appellate courts

the petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the constitutional error had a substantial and injurious impact or influence on the jury’s guilty verdict

the individual filing a petition for habeas corpus may not rely on a new rule of law announced by the Supreme Court following the exhaustion of his or her direct state appeals

Requirements for Habeas Corpus (cont.)

a federal court will not hear a habeas corpus petition in those instances in which a defendant failed follow state procedures and did not raise an objection at trial and exhaust state appeals

the successive petition doctrine prohibits a second petition that raises a claim that has been presented in a prior habeas petition

the abuse of writ doctrine prohibits raising an issue that a defendant did not raise in the first petition, but could have raised