John B. Webster
04-30-2004, 03:20 PM
Below I have posted a bit of information about a few cases currently pending before the Supreme Court.
Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections v. Warren W. Summerlin
No. 03-526
In 2002 in a case called Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 (2002), the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment jury trial guarantee extends to the determination of any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the maximum punishment for first-degree murder from life imprisonment to death. review. The issue presented here is whether that decision should be applied retroactively.
Depending upon how the Court rules, this case can be significant for already sentenced federal offenders that had there sentence “enhanced,” for reasons other than a prior conviction. If such was the case, a jury (or a judge if a jury trial was waived) would have had to make a finding of fact, that the circumstances supporting the enhancement actually occurred. The court will decide of its ruling in Ring applies retroactively to previously sentenced offenders. The case can affect both state and federal offenders.
This as also an interesting case for another reason: It is a death penalty case and the Defendant’s lawyer and the Prosecutor were romantically involved during the Defendant’s trial. The Court of Appeals did not see a problem with this. Go figure.
United States v. Carlos D. Benitez
No. 03-167
The issue presented to the Supreme Court in this case is whether a federal defendant “substantive” rights were violated if a plea is accepted and the Court fails to inform the Defendant that he/she can withdraw the plea if the Court decides to reject the sentencing recommendation. In this case, Carlos Dominguez Benitez (“Benitez”) appealed his conviction, entered upon a plea of guilty, and his 120 month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Benitez contends his conviction must be reversed because the district court failed to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(2) by not informing him he could not withdraw his guilty plea if the court did not accept the sentencing recommendation set forth in the plea agreement. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Defendant and the government appealed.
Josue Leocal v. John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney Gen., et al.
No. 03-583
The issue presented here is whether a driving under the influence charge, that resulted in serious bodily injury, is a “crime of violence” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 16 Several Circuit Courts have held that it does and several have held otherwise, thus presenting a split among the various Courts of Appeals. Although this case came up in the context if deportation proceeding, the Supreme Court’ s ruling will affect alleged “career criminals” and sentencing in general for people alleged to have previously committed a “crime of violence.”
Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections v. Warren W. Summerlin
No. 03-526
In 2002 in a case called Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 (2002), the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment jury trial guarantee extends to the determination of any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the maximum punishment for first-degree murder from life imprisonment to death. review. The issue presented here is whether that decision should be applied retroactively.
Depending upon how the Court rules, this case can be significant for already sentenced federal offenders that had there sentence “enhanced,” for reasons other than a prior conviction. If such was the case, a jury (or a judge if a jury trial was waived) would have had to make a finding of fact, that the circumstances supporting the enhancement actually occurred. The court will decide of its ruling in Ring applies retroactively to previously sentenced offenders. The case can affect both state and federal offenders.
This as also an interesting case for another reason: It is a death penalty case and the Defendant’s lawyer and the Prosecutor were romantically involved during the Defendant’s trial. The Court of Appeals did not see a problem with this. Go figure.
United States v. Carlos D. Benitez
No. 03-167
The issue presented to the Supreme Court in this case is whether a federal defendant “substantive” rights were violated if a plea is accepted and the Court fails to inform the Defendant that he/she can withdraw the plea if the Court decides to reject the sentencing recommendation. In this case, Carlos Dominguez Benitez (“Benitez”) appealed his conviction, entered upon a plea of guilty, and his 120 month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Benitez contends his conviction must be reversed because the district court failed to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e)(2) by not informing him he could not withdraw his guilty plea if the court did not accept the sentencing recommendation set forth in the plea agreement. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Defendant and the government appealed.
Josue Leocal v. John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney Gen., et al.
No. 03-583
The issue presented here is whether a driving under the influence charge, that resulted in serious bodily injury, is a “crime of violence” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 16 Several Circuit Courts have held that it does and several have held otherwise, thus presenting a split among the various Courts of Appeals. Although this case came up in the context if deportation proceeding, the Supreme Court’ s ruling will affect alleged “career criminals” and sentencing in general for people alleged to have previously committed a “crime of violence.”