U.S. Supreme Court -Consecutive Sentencing Ruling

[Zelda50]

Setser v. United States

Date Filed: March 28, 2012
Case #: 10-7387

Scalia, J. delivered the opinion of the Court which Roberts, C.J., and
Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a
dissenting opinion which Kennedy and Ginsberg, JJ., joined.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-7387.pdf

SENTENCING: (Federal district courts have discretion to order a
federal sentence to run consecutively with a state sentence that has
yet to be imposed.)

Petitioner was arrested and indicted for drug possession and the state
revoked his probation for an earlier drug conviction. Petitioner also
pled guilty to federal drug crimes and the District Court sentenced
Petitioner to 151 months, to run consecutive to any state sentence for
probation violation and concurrent to any state sentence for
possession charges. The state court sentenced Petitioner to concurrent
terms of 5 years for the probation violation and 10 years for the drug
charge.

Petitioner argued that the District Court did not have authority to
order consecutive sentences and that the federal sentence was
unreasonable and impossible to implement in light of the concurrent
state sentences. Petitioner further argued that because the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) has statutory authority to order a federal prisoner to
serve time in a state prison when also convicted of a state crime,
that it should also be the BOP that determines whether he would serve
concurrent or consecutive sentences.

The Supreme Court noted that common law has long recognized the
discretion of the judiciary to select whether sentences will run
concurrently or consecutively when dealing with additional sentences
imposed against defendants. The Court held that this discretion
includes making determinations where the district court judge
anticipates a state court sentence yet to be imposed against the
defendant. The language of 18 U.S.C. 3584 assumes that such authority
of the courts already exists and does not confer such authority to the
BOP to make such sentencing decisions. The Court found Petitioner’s
argument regarding the unreasonable and impossible nature of
concurrent state sentences unpersuasive because district courts would
face the same unknown future if such authority to determine concurrent
versus consecutive sentences was placed with the BOP. While the Court
found that the state and federal sentences are problematic they are
not an abuse of discretion by the district court, and since
determinations of concurrent or consecutive sentences have
historically belonged to the judiciary, the district courts are the
correct forum.

[Summarized by Jessica Osborne]
----------------------------------------------

[Zelda50]

Just read a federal defense attorney's blog where he surmised that this ruling can have an impact on Compassionate Release motions - in that it states that the Court can take over jurisdiction from the BOP in the decision.