Document: 519 U.S. 148117 S.Ct. 633136 L.Ed.2d 554 UNITED STATESv.Vernon WATTS.UNITED STATESv.Cheryl PUTRA. No. 95-1906. Supreme Court of the United States Decided Jan. 6, 1997. PER CURIAM. 1 In these two cases, panels Appeals for Ninth Circuit held that sentencing courts could not consider conduct defendants underlying charges which they had been acquitted. v. Watts, 67 F.3d 790 (C.A.9 1995) (''Watts ''); Putra, 78 1386 1996) (''Putra ''). Every other has a court may do so, if Government establishes by preponderance evidence.1 The filed single petition certiorari seeking review both pursuant to this Court's Rule 12.4, resolve split. Because panels' holdings conflict with clear implications 18 U.S.C. § 3661, Sentencing Guidelines, and decisions, particularly Witte States, 515 ----, 115 2199, 132 351 (1995), we grant reverse in cases. 2 police discovered cocaine base kitchen cabinet loaded guns ammunition hidden bedroom closet Watts' house. A jury convicted Watts possessing intent distribute, violation 21 841(a)(1), but acquitted him using firearm relation drug offense, 924(c). Despite acquittal on firearms count, District found evidence possessed connection offense. calculating sentence, therefore added points his offense level under Commission, Guidelines Manual 2D1.1(b)(1) (Nov.1995) (USSG). vacated holding ''a judge not, 'under any standard proof,' rely facts defendant was acquitted.'' F.3d, at 797 (quoting Brady, 928 F.2d 844, 851, n. 12 1991), abrogated grounds, Nichols 511 738, 114 1921, 128 745 (1994)) (emphasis ). argued have enhanced sentence without considering ''necessarily rejected'' jury's 924(c) charge because enhancement did require between predicate whereas did. rejected argument, stated involved such connection, impermissibly ''reconsider[ed] necessarily its another count.'' 796. 3 authorities videotaped transactions Putra codefendant (a major dealer) sold government informant. indictment charged with, among things, one count aiding abetting possession distribute ounce May 8, 1992; second five ounces 9, 1992, 841(a)(1) 2. first her second. At sentencing, however, indeed 9 transaction. explained sale relevant USSG 1B1.3, it calculated Putra's aggregating amounts sales. As remanded resentencing. Reasoning verdict manifested an ''explicit rejection'' involvement transaction, ''allowing increase would be effectively punishing she 1389. panel imposing judicial limitation district beyond imposed Guidelines.'' Ibid. Then-Chief Judge Wallace dissented, arguing panel's ''sweeping language contradicts our practice prior enactment decisions circuits, recent authority.'' Id., 1390. 4 We begin analysis codifies longstanding principle broad discretion various kinds information. statute states: 5 ''No shall placed information concerning background, character, person receive purpose appropriate sentence.'' 6 reiterated Williams New York, 337 241, 69 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949), murder sentenced death challenged court's reliance 30 burglaries he convicted. contrasted different limitations presentation trial sentencing: ''Highly relevant-if essential-to [the judge's] selection is fullest possible defendant's life characteristics.'' 247, S.Ct., 1083 (footnote omitted); see Nichols, supra, 747, 1928 (noting traditionally constitutionally ''considered past criminal behavior, even no conviction resulted from behavior'') (citing Williams, supra ); BMW North America, Inc. Gore, 517 ---- 19, 116 1589, 1597 134 809 (1996) (''A behavior result conviction'') Neither 3661 nor suggests basis invent blanket prohibition against certain types sentencing. Indeed, pre-Guidelines regime, ''well established take into account introduced relating charges, ones Donelson, 695 583, 590 (C.A.D.C.1982) (Scalia, J.). 7 alter aspect discretion. '' '[V]ery roughly speaking, [relevant conduct] corresponds those actions circumstances typically took when Guidelines' enactment.' Witte, 2207 Wright, 873 437, 441 (C.A.1 1989) (Breyer, J.)). Section 1B1.4 reflects policy set forth 3661: 8 ''In determining impose within guideline range, or whether departure guidelines warranted, consider, limitation, character defendant, unless otherwise prohibited law. See 3661.'' turn, describes sweeping applicable range. commentary section ''Conduct formally element enter determination range.'' 1B1.3 comment., backg'd. With respect offenses, as conviction, 1B1.3(a)(2) requires ''all acts omissions . were part same course common scheme plan conviction.'' Application Note explains ''[a]pplication provision does fact, multiple counts.'' also gives following example: 10 ''[W]here engaged three sales 10, 15, 20 grams cocaine, plan, subsection (a)(2) provides total quantity (45 grams) used determine charging only sales.'' 11 Accordingly, conclude ''[r]elying entire range conduct, regardless number counts are alleged obtained, appears most reasonable approach writing workable offenses.'' backg'd added). Although dissent concedes properly ''evidence adduced acquittal'' choosing particular argues must close eyes earlier stages process ''broadly inclusive 3661'' incorporated Guidelines. This argument ignores which, noted, directs all related conviction. contends Congress instructed 28 994(l ), ensure provide incremental punishment who meant based offenses Post, __. ''cast restrictive exclusive terms.'' Ebbole, 917 1495, 1501 (C.A.7 1990). Far limiting power uncharged ) simply ensures that, minimum, additional penalties offenses. If accepted dissent's logic, 944(l prohibit purposes, setting range-a novel proposition itself defend. short, convinced 13 Appeals' position contrary conflicts seems erroneous views double jeopardy jurisprudence. asserted considers returned guilty, 'suffer[s] acquitted.' F.3d. F.2d, 851). enhancements punish crimes convicted, rather manner committed crime U.S., 2207-2208. could, consistent Double Jeopardy Clause, importation marijuana statutory precluding subsequent prosecution concluded ''consideration about 'punishment' than convicted.'' 2207. Rather, ''punished fact present carried out warrants increased 2207-2208; ----. 14 likewise misunderstood preclusive effect acquittal, ''rejects'' some returns general guilty. 1389 Appe als failed appreciate significance standards proof govern ''acquittal prove innocent; merely proves existence doubt guilt.'' One Assortment 89 Firearms, 465 354, 361, 104 1099, 1104, 79 361 (1984). then-Chief pointed impossible know exactly why guilty charge. 15 ''[A]n finding fact. An can acknowledgment essential doubt. Without specific findings, logically realistically draw factual inferences 1394. 16 Thus, assertion cannot said 17 For reasons, ''an case preclude relitigating issue presented action governed lower proof.'' Dowling 493 342, 349, 110 668, 672, 107 708 (1990). state ''appropriate'' proved evidence, 6A1.3 application generally satisfies due process. McMillan Pennsylvania, 477 79, 91-92, 106 2411, 2418-2419, 91 (1986); 747-748, - acknowledge divergence opinion Circuits whether, extreme circumstances, dramatically convincing evidence.2 cases before us today exceptional address issue. hold prevent charge, so long evidence. erred today. complicity sheds light participation Likewise, carrying during That did, use carry weapon, much less weapon 19 granted, judgments reversed, further proceedings opinion. Respondent motion proceed forma pauperis granted. Morris L. Whitman leave file brief amicus curiae It ordered. Justice SCALIA, concurring. 22 I agree BREYER'S concurrence there obstacle Commission's reversing today's outcome mandating disregard proper consider. Title 994(b)(1) ''consistent pertinent provisions title 18, Code.'' ''[n]o my view, neither Commission authority decree justify upward considered (or after passing higher probative worth Constitution laws require) pertains conduct. believes rules inadequate, recommend changes Congress, cf. 994(w). 23 BREYER, 24 join per curiam while noting poses deciding enhance concludes place, defendant. 25 telling judges ordinary conviction,'' Co mmission, 1B1.3(a)(2)(Nov.1995)(USSG), recognize their creation often account, precise made up well. And presently written, make exception To extent, rests upon logical possibility jury, applying evidentiary standards, reach conclusions. 26 truth consideration. should contain ''relevant conduct'' instruct Courts, 57 Fed.Reg. 62832 (1992) (proposed 1B1.3(c)). Given role juries acquittals play system, decide revisit matter future. reason, think important specify far decision concerned, accept reject proposal remains hands. 27 STEVENS, dissenting. ''The Reform Act 1984 revolutionized persons federal crimes.'' Burns 501 129, 132, 111 2182, 2184, 123 (1991). goals rehabilitation fairness served individualized formerly justified vesting virtually unreviewable replaced impersonal interest uniformity retribution.1 Strict mandatory confined exercise judgment totality circumstances. ''While products labors given modest name 'Guidelines,' force laws, prescribing sentences receive. disregards them will reversed.'' Mistretta 488 413, 109 647, 676, 102 714 (1989) (SCALIA, J., dissenting). 29 * 1970, era enacted now codified inadmissible statute, tell how weigh free might shed probation, maximum, extremes. Wisdom experience enabled give weight uncorroborated hearsay Even erroneously required ignore guilt. time, discount mitigating circumstances-perhaps persuaded appropriate-were present. Like capital case, ''to dispense mercy factors too intangible write statute,'' Gregg Georgia, 428 153, 222, 96 2909, 2947, 49 859 (1976) (White, concurring judgment). cabined judges, 1970 books. true enacted, speak questions relevance item offended proscribe economic hardship, alcohol dependence, lack guidance youth, making decisions. Koon 518 2035, 2044, 135 392 (1996). Conversely, command weight-or all-be prosecutor introduces ante, __, support narrow sometimes ''consider acquitted,'' judges' authorized allowed Constitution. 31 closer examination interaction Act, demonstrates played narrower scope suggests. primarily Congress' concern similar offenders receiving unjustifiably wide sentences.'' S.Rep. 98-225, p. 38 (1983). created Commission) directed draft cabin judges-those harsh well lenient. 991(b)(1)(B). While abolition parole indicates new intended minimum levels punishment, §§3624(a) (b), maximum statute. central mechanism promulgated avoid disparate typical requirement imprisonment ''the term exceed more greater percent months,'' 994(b)(2). ranges fall operation rules, retains sentence. 32 By own terms, incorporate broadly portions 33 provides: 34 35 area exercises authorizes unlimited access When exercising discretion, including acquittal. But practice, enshrined 1B1.4, little, any, appropriateness Courts' defines purposes imposed. II 36 law raised Cheryl identification determined offender history, entirely punished. She distribution participating transaction involving 1992. 1386, 1387 1996). provided Ms. months prison longer months. 37 increased; applied precisely dictated Notwithstanding absence sufficient guilt doubt, led imposition six permitted punishment.2 text perverse result. vigor debate appeals basic belies ease addresses it, hearing oral allowing parties fully issues.3 III 39 relies principally cases-Williams (1949); (1995)-to outcome. each instance, misplaced. 40 First, dealt judge's law, defining exercised. Second, ''[t]he accuracy statements appellant's background practices appellant counsel, asked afford chance refute discredit cross-examination otherwise.'' 244, 1081-1082. question here-the burden facts-was thus case. Third, rationale depended largely agreement regime significantly system. ''Williams decided context 'system focuse[d] subjective assessments rehabilitative potential ' Saltzburg, [Sentencing Procedures: Where Does Responsibility Lie?, Fed. Sent. Rep. 248, 250 ].'' Wise, 976 393, 409 (C.A.8 1992) (Arnold, C. dissenting part). acknowledged, Burns, wrought dramatic change processes, replacing very system rigid ''[f]or courts, what really about.'' 409. 41 Court, like adopted Courts misguided five-to-four (1986). reasons id., 95-104, 2421-2425, continue believe incorrectly reconsidered. accepting establish factor increases altering least dictate 42 McMillan, unchanged; actually available enhancing proved. pointedly noted Pennsylvania altered penalty committed'' operated ''solely limit courts' selecting already special visible firearm.'' 87-88, 2417. acknowledged ''inability lay down 'bright line' test'' define limits holding, 91, 2419, apparent assumption serve ''tail wags dog substantive offense,'' 88, 2417, 2, extended allow lawfully discretion.4 43 Moreover, addressed constitutionality meaning perfectly clear. Nothing arguably mandates reached BREYER separate concurrence, __-__, unquestionably disallow consideration Similarly, chosen running afoul enabling legislation. itself, complete pre-1984 precedent establishing permissible announced 1986 Act. 44 Nor answer disagree conclusion Clause convicting individual decisive individual's previous here. carefully repeatedly, context. 2205 (defendant ''is punished, convicted''); 2206 (disputed ''punishment Clause''); 2208 (practice ''constitutes inquiry''). What being twice punished prosecuted initial 45 IVD P1WPutra's involves ''multiple several received though say 46 specifically included provides:SU22W''The insure reflect- 47 ''(1) of- 48 ''(A) ; ''(B) times (Emphasis added.) 50 difficult square explicit offenses'' convicted'' acquitted.5 willing read statute's treatment indicted expressly ''for offense'' ''defendant conveys message thoughtful judges.6 51 construed traditional sustained always Whether allegation sole bases presume adhere procedural requirements cons titutional notion rise repugnant 52 respectfully dissent. 53 KENNEDY, 54 summary reversal here, and, lesser --- (1995); created, en banc rule followed circuits; constrain seeks do. 55 On hand, raises recurrent importance hundreds issue, just history shows hesitation confronting distinction ought confronted reasoned shrugging off. 56 raise concerns undercutting Stevens whom refers theoretical contradiction escape overriding practical considerations, so. Finally, out, deserves careful exploration. illustrated Justices Scalia Breyer find necessary opinions differing Commission. full briefing calendar. From failure Boney, 977 624, 635-636 (C.A.D.C.1992); Mocciola, 891 13, 16-17 (criticized dicta Lanoue, 71 966, 984 1995)); Rodriguez-Gonzalez, 899 177, 180-182(CA2), cert. denied, 498 127, 112 95 (1990); Ryan, 866 604, 608-609 (C.A.3 1989); Isom, 886 736, 738-739 (C.A.4 Juarez-Ortega, 748-749 (C.A.5 (per curiam); Unit ed Milton, 203, 208-209 (C.A.6 1994), 513 741, 130 642 Fonner, 920 1330, 1332-1333 1990); Dawn, 897 1444, 1449-1450 (C.A.8), 960, 389, 400 Coleman, 947 1424, 1428-1429 (C.A.10 503 972, 1590, 118 307 (1992); Averi, 922 765, 765-766 (C.A.11 1991) curiam). 2417 (upholding where tail offense''); Kinder 504 946, 948-949, 2290, 2291-2292, 119 214 denial certiorari) (acknowledging split); Kikumura, 918 1084, 1102 1990) (holding clear-and-convincing implicit 3553(b), ''find'' order large departures; reaching issue); Gigante, 42, (C.A.2 amended, 94 53, (not issue; threshold adjustments departures, point along continuum severity, regard departures standard, substantially met, depart downwardly''); Lombard, 72 170, 186-187 (authorizing downward unusual perhaps singular case'' ''exceeded'' constitutional limits, calling ''enormous'' serious conduct,'' ''where ultimate enormous, seemingly mandated sentence''); Townle y, 929 365, 369 (''At least, allows approved garden variety determinations fail comport where, becomes 'a offense' '') 2417); Restrepo, 946 654, 656, (en banc) (suggesting extraordinary departures), 961, 1564, 211 Lam Kwong-Wah, 966 682, 688 (C.A.D.C.) (same), 506 901, 113 287, 121 213 Trujillo, 959 1377, 1382(CA7) 897, 277, 204 (1992). Washington, 1510, 1516 1993) calculations foreclosed circuit''), 1020, 1404, 76 (1994). Compare 247-248, 1083-1084, (1949) (''Reformation become jurisprudence''), 994(k) (rejecting goal imprisonment) 3553(a)(2) (stating retributive, deterrent, educational incapacitative goals). surrounding Vernon somewhat 924(c), crimes. 790, 793 1995). points, 2D1.1(b)(1), concluding ''possession'' 797-798. ''use'' identical, relied appropriate. nevertheless inappropriate Since taken breaks settled every Circuit, respected jurists over country critical mechanical so-called See, e.g, Silverman, 1502, 1519, 1527 (Merritt, dissenting); 1533 (Martin, Concepcion, 983 369, 396 (Newman, concurring) distinguish resulting acquittal''); Galloway, 414, 436 (Bright, J. dissenting, joined Arnold, Lay, McMillian, J.); 663 (Pregerson, Hug, 664 (Norris, Pregerson, D.W. Nelson, Cf. (''Although makes difference Fifth Sixth Amendment right trampled imprisoned (for length time) him''). Martin, Cornerstone Has No Foundation: Relevant Conduct Requirements Due Process, Const. L.J. 25, 34-36 (1993); Beale, Procedural Issues Raised Sentencing: Constitutional Significance ''Elements Sentence,'' Wm. & Mary L.Rev. 147, 157-158 Herman, Tail Wagged Dog: Bifurcated Fact-Finding Federal Limits 66 S. Cal. 289 Heaney, Reality End Disparity, Am.Crim. 161, 208-220 shift Guideline produce maximum. does, mandate above legal absent conduct.'' upholding tended focus attention exclusively direct ''nature 3553(a)(1); 994(d). 994(d), granted [certain enumerated factors], others, relevance,'' Some inclusion qualifier ''among others'' indicated include anything felt decision. e.g., 420-421; Thomas, 932 1085, 1089 denied sub nom. Pullock 502 895, 264, 217, Samuels 962, 428, 447 (1992).FC21WBut separately rest congressional directive ''othe[r]'' level. concluded, provision, outside 430-431 (Beam, Davern, 970 1490, 1507 C.J.

Category: 0