Opinion ID: 203159
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Multiple Proceedings

Text: The majority's concern that an advance notice rule would often require a two-stage sentencing process reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the sentencing process. My colleagues appear to believe that a judge enters the courtroom for a sentencing hearing with little sense of the sentence he or she intends to impose or the factors that will affect that sentence. They assume that these factors will become apparent only during the course of the hearing and that, if notice is required for a decision to deviate from the Guidelines, many variances will require a continuance and second hearing. That concern is at odds with reality. While the majority may be correct that a judge will not make a final sentencing decision until the end of the hearing, and may well be revising his views depending on what is presented and how counsel respond to questions, the judge will arrive at that hearing after a review of the presentence report and other relevant materials. He or she will already have a developed view of what the appropriate sentence is, including its length. To be sure, the judge's views may be altered by what he or she hears at the hearing. But a judge will -26- almost always have considered in advance of the hearing whether an upward or downward variance is appropriate. To suggest less forethought on the part of the sentencing judge is to suggest that the judge enters the hearing unprepared. In other words, the ultimate decision to deviate from the Guidelines – made at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, after adversary testing of the issues – should not be confused with the earlier inclination – developed before the hearing – to focus attention on particular factors that might warrant such a deviation. The notice required by Rule 32(h) is not that a court will impose a variance, but only that it is considering factors that may justify a variance. Hence, it would pose no burden for the court to provide notice in advance of the hearing that such a variance is contemplated. In those few instances where the court's inclination to impose a variance is based on a factor or factors raised for the first time at the hearing, the principles of Burns and Rule 32(h) require the court to provide sufficient notice to enable both the defendant and the government to consider, research and thoughtfully respond to the new ground. In that case a continuance of the sentencing hearing would be required. Such continuances would be a small price to pay for the fairness to all parties of the advance notice requirement. -27-