Opinion ID: 527119
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Title 18, Title 28, and the guidelines

Text: 14 Wills correctly points out that the guidelines and the applicable federal statute, i.e. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3584(a) (Supp. II 1984), conflict as to whether the trial judge has discretion to impose a concurrent or consecutive sentence. 1 Additionally, the statutes delegating power to the Sentencing Commission to promulgate the guidelines, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 991-998 (Supp. II 1984), also seem to conflict with section 3584(a). 15
16 if a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively.... Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time run concurrently unless the court orders or the statute mandates that the terms are to run consecutively. Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run concurrently. 17 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3584(a) (emphasis added). 18 (2) Section 994(a), regarding the duties of the Sentencing Commission, provides in part: The Commission ... shall promulgate ... (1) guidelines ... for use of a sentencing court in determining the sentence to be imposed in a criminal case, including ... (D) a determination whether multiple sentences to terms of imprisonment should be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively[.] 28 U.S.C. 994(a)(1)(D). 19 (3) Section 994(b)(1) provides that [t]he Commission, in the guidelines promulgated pursuant to subsection(a)(1), shall, for each category of offense involving each category of defendant, establish a sentencing range that is consistent with all pertinent provisions of Title 18, United States Code. 28 U.S.C. 994(b)(1). 20 (4) Finally, guideline 5G1.3 provides that, [i]f at the time of sentencing, the defendant is already serving one or more unexpired sentences, then the sentences for the instant offense(s) shall run consecutively to such unexpired sentences. United States Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements Sec. 5G1.3 (April 13, 1987) (emphasis added). The Commission's commentary states that this guideline reflects the statutory presumption that sentences imposed at different times ordinarily run consecutively. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3584(a). Id. 21 Wills urges that because the trial judge chose to sentence him under the guidelines, this court should hold that he acted without discretion, and that therefore he violated Rule 11. We disagree. 22 We hold that a judge has discretion to impose a concurrent or consecutive sentence, as a matter of law, under section 3584(a). First, section 3584(a) unambiguously confers that discretion upon the trial judge. Although section 994(a)(1)(D) apparently would allow the Commission to eliminate the discretion, section 994(b)(1) requires that the Commission's guidelines be consistent with the provisions of Title 18, which include section 3584(a). If the guidelines are to be consistent with Title 18, the discretion cannot be taken away. 23 Second, although the language of the guidelines would deprive the judge of discretion, the Sentencing Commission's commentary suggests that the guidelines are not meant to change section 3584(a), but rather to reflect it. 2 24 Also, under this reading of the statutes, the sentencing scheme is internally consistent. A contrary construction of these provisions maximizes conflict, since it would pit section 994(a)(1)(D) and guideline 5G1.3, which would eliminate judicial discretion, against sections 994(b)(1) and 3584(a), which would allow it. No statutory provision can be said to control over the other because enacted last in time; all the statutes were part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, Pub.L. 98-473, Secs. 212, 98 Stat.1987, 2000-01 (enacting 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3584), 217(a) 98 Stat.1987, 2019-20 (enacting 28 U.S.C. Sec. 994) (1984). 25 Finally, the legislative history behind Pub.L. 98-473 suggests that Congress meant sections 3584 and 994 to be complementary. Section 994(a)(1)(D) was included because earlier versions of section 3584 proposed an undesirable ceiling on the maximum term of imprisonment that could be imposed for multiple offenses. See S.Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 165 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 3182, 3348. However, the ceilings do not appear in the version of section 3584 that became law. 26 The Senate Committee on the Judiciary also believed that section 994(a)(1)(D), when read with the revised version of 28 U.S.C. 994(l ) [would] lead to carefully considered determinations as to the appropriateness of concurrent, consecutive, or overlapping sentences in cases of multiple offenses. S.Rep. No. 225 at 165, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 3348. Section 994(l ) allows the Commission to impose incremental penalties for multiple offenses. The same Senate report makes clear that the revised section 3584 allows the Commission to increase the penalties for multiple offenses, yet preserves judicial discretion: 27 [18 U.S.C. 3584(a) ] is intended to be used as a rule of construction [where] the court is silent as to whether sentences are consecutive or concurrent, in order to avoid litigation on the subject.... Ordinarily, under the guidelines system, if the court is sentencing for multiple offenses at the same time, the guidelines will specify an incremental penalty by which some portion of the sentence for the first offense is added to the sentence for each similar offense. Thus, for example, if the term of imprisonment recommended in the guidelines for one offense is two years, the guidelines might recommend a sentence of two and a half or three years if the defendant was convicted of three or four such offenses. On the other hand, if the defendant was being sentenced at one time for two entirely different offenses committed at different times, the judge might think that adding the guidelines sentences for the offenses together was appropriate, and specify fully consecutive sentences rather than overlapping ones. 28 Id. at 127, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 3310 (footnote omitted). 29 Since the district judge had discretion to impose either a consecutive or concurrent sentence upon Wills, the resulting sentence was not a direct consequence of Wills' plea. The judge therefore did not violate Rule 11.