For Followers of Sentencing Law

I mentioned in an earlier post that SCOTUS had granted cert. on Tuesday in yet another sentencing guidelines case, Cunningham v. California. After reading the lower court opinion, I wanted to post some more info on the case.

Cunningham involves a scumbag who was convicted of molesting his son and sentenced under the California state sentencing guidelines scheme. Those guidelines set forth three different ranges that a judge can use in sentencing: a "normal" range of years, an upper range that a judge may (but is not required) to sentence the offender in if the judge finds that certain aggravating factors were present, and a lower range that the judge may (but again is not required to) use if certain mitigating factors were present. The Cunningham trial judge made findings of fact that aggravating factors were present in the case and chose to upgrade the defendant to the higher sentencing range. The California appellate courts affirmed.

This case is potentially even more important than last year's U.S. v. Booker, which held that mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines- which pre-Booker required federal judges to upgrade sentences if they found the existence of certain aggravating facts- violated the Sixth Amendment rights to jury trial. However, the court did not strike down use of the federal guidelines entirely, but merely made them "advisory." Under Booker, it is clear that judges cannot be required to upgrade sentences based on their own (not a jury's) findings of fact, but there has been much controversy over the question of whether they may do so. The Booker result suggests yes; the Booker Sixth Amendment jury trial reasoning suggests no. The Cunningham case squarely presents this question.

The Court will hear the case next fall.

Update: The correct style of the Booker case is U.S. v. Booker, not Booker v. Washington (the last precedent case prior to Booker was Blakely v. Washington, hence my mistake).