Bloomberg Law’s® extensive network of reporters and editors helps subscribers to stay ahead of legal
The catchall definition of “crime of violence” in the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines can’t be void for vagueness under the due process clause, the U.S. Supreme Court held March 6 ( Beckles v. United States , U.S., No. 15-8544, affirmed 3/6/17 ).
Travis Beckles was sentenced as a career offender under the guidelines, which define a career offender as one who “has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.”
Section 4B1.2(a)(2) defines a “crime of violence” as either having certain elements, being an enumerated offense or being one that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”
This catchall language is almost identical to the catchall provision in the Armed Career Criminal Act.
The ACCA language was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, 2015 BL 204915 (U.S. June 26, 2015).
Beckles asked the court to hold that the language in the guidelines is similarly vague in violation of due process.
The court distinguished Johnson and held that the guidelines “are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause,” in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Unlike the ACCA, “the advisory Guidelines do not fix the permissible range of sentences. To the contrary, they merely guide the exercise of a court’s discretion in choosing an appropriate sentence within the statutory range.”
An advisory sentencing guideline fails to fall under one of the two types of provisions the court has previously found void for vagueness: those that “define criminal offenses” and those that “fix the permissible sentences for criminal offenses,” the court said.
The guidelines also fail to implicate “the twin concerns underlying vagueness doctrine—providing notice and preventing arbitrary enforcement,” the court said.
The court has never suggested that a defendant can successfully challenge as vague a sentencing statute allowing a judge to select an appropriate sentence from within a statutory range, even when that discretion is unfettered.
“If a system of unfettered discretion is not unconstitutionally vague, then it is difficult to see how the present system of guided discretion could be,” it said.
Thousands of cases have been waiting in the pipeline for a decision in this case, Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben told the court during oral argument.
In separate concurrences, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said the court did not need to issue such a sweeping opinion in this case when Beckles’s offense of conviction—possessing a sawed-off shotgun as a felon—meant that the catchall definition did not have to come into play at his sentencing.
Sotomayor accused the majority of casting the court’s “sentencing jurisprudence into doubt.”
The Department of Justice declined to comment on the decision.
Professor Carissa Byrne Hessick of the University of North Carolina School of Law, Chapel Hill, N.C., told Bloomberg BNA that “the court’s opinion ignores entirely the fact that many lower federal courts continue to treat the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory.”
Thomas’s opinion repeatedly mentions the advisory nature of the guidelines.
The “court should require sentencing judges to justify within-guideline sentences, and the court should reverse circuit court cases that have limited sentencing judges’ ability to sentence outside of the guidelines. The guidelines should not be treated as advisory only when doing so advances the interests of prosecutors,” she added.
To contact the reporter on this story: Alisa Johnson in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: C. Reilly Larson at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)