Legal Document

418 U.S. 424 94 Supreme Court Reporter 3042 41 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 855 Douglas DORSZYNSKI, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Number 73—5284. Argued March 20, 1974. Decided June 26, Syllabus In sentencing a youth offender as an adult under other applicable penal statutes, § 5010(d) of the Federal Youth Corrections Act requires federal district court to 'find' that would not benefit from treatment Act, but does require such 'finding' be accompanied by supporting reasons. Pp. 431—444. (a) Section 5010(d)'s requirement 'no benefit' finding is read substantive standard must satisfied support sentence outside for reading comport with intent manifested its legislative history, increase trial judges' options, or traditional doctrine function exclusively vested in and reviewable if within terms statute. It therefore follows requiring statement reasons accompany limit court's discretion since it only serve facilitate appellate review sentencing, contrary Act. 436—442. (b) was designed insure judge deliberately exercised choosing commit making clear aware Act's existence also offender's eligibility thereunder. Once made has considered option rejected it, no warranted. 442—443. 484 Reporter, 2nd 849, reversed remanded. Robert Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Friebert petitioner. Gerald Pacific KF135 P2 Norton, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted certiorari, 414 1091, 721, 38 548 (1973), resolve conflict Circuits concerning whether, 18 Code KF62 5005 et seq., first make explicit finding, supported on record, subsection (c) 5010. The Appeals held may implied 849 (CA7 (1973). Three have taken position,1 three required reasons.2 conclude while express judgment reversed, case remanded District further proceedings. 2 * On October 19, 1971, special agent Bureau Narcotics Dangerous Drugs arrangements petitioner's codefendant, whose before this Court, purchase approximately 1,000 tablets lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) following day. At appointed hour undercover shown LSD possession co-defendant, who transferred agent. exhibition transfer took place automobile being driven After were money had changed hands, petitioner his codefendant arrested. complaint upon which arrest warrant issued charged him knowingly intentionally possessing LSD, violation 21 844(a).3 Subsequent release own recognizance, counsel informed intended plead guilty charge, requested completion presentence report prior plea, authorized Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 32(c). 3 February 14, 1972, proceedings filing information, arraignment, sentence. Government filed one-count information charging co-defendant misdemeanor offense 844(a). maximum offenders 844(a), could receive one year prison, fine $5,000, both; advised might been age see n. 9, infra, he 'may subject Act.'4 App. 6. Petitioner, 19 years old at time proceeding criminal pleaded guilty, did codefendant. inquiry prescribed 11 determine whether there basis fact entered voluntarily understanding nature consequences,5 accepted plea. 4 Since desired sentenced proceeding, recessed consider report, already read. recess given right allocution, 'be placed . probation Act.' 13. See 4, supra. Petitioner then received split remitted custody Attorney General year, 90 days' confinement 'in jail-type treatment' institution, although mentions 'jail-type' institution; execution remainder suspended two custody. 3651.6 during including any reference 5 May 1, after having numerous post-conviction motions relief, motion issue here, seeking relief pursuant Fed.Rules 32(d) 35, 28 2255, grounds. alleged plea understandingly; us. 5, second without jurisdiction impose because failed petitioenr derive 5010(b) (c), assertedly 5010(d). evidentiary hearing motion, well pending time. All denied opinion. stated postconviction affirmative thereunder penalty provisions; concluded committing 'the (District) impliedly (held) (was) applicable.' 45. 6 affirmed, rejecting view judges determination record whole imposition raised possibility F.2d, 851. II 7 sole validity imposed contends requires, first, find explicitly convicted defendant and, second, explain finding. begin general proposition once determined limitations set forth statute imposed, end.7 Gore versus States, 357 386, 393, 78 1280, 1284, 1405 (1958); Townsend Burke, 334 736, 741, 68 1252, 1255, 92 L.Ed. 1690 (1948); Blockburger 284 299, 305, 52 180, 182, 76 306 (1932). Our task, therefore, here permitted 8 accurately described most comprehensive concerned sentencing. Coefield, 155 U.S.App.D.C. 205, 209, 476 1152, 1156 substantial part outgrowth recommendations Judicial Conference more than 30 ago.8 principles procedures contained turn largely based those developed 1894 system young England, known Borstal system. Criminal 1948, & 12 Geo. 6, chapter 58, 1961, 9 10 Eliz. 2, 39. Statistics available study revealed principal motivating factors behind enactment Act: period life between 16 22 found when operated produce habitual criminals. Second, then-existing methods treating criminally inclined youths inadequate avoiding recidivism. H.R.Rep.No.2979, 81st Cong., Sess., 2—3 (1950) (hereinafter H.R.Rep.No.2979). thus provide better method courts vulnerable bracket, rehabilitate them restore normal behavior patterns. Ibid. To accomplish objective, new alternatives add array options previously them, infra: they enabled eligible (c). believed need commitment, 5010(a). If chose alternative, committed program created objective these represented departure focused primarily correction rehabilitation. persons conviction Act,9 latter defined 'corrective preventive guidance training protect public correcting (their) antisocial tendencies.' §§ 5006(e) (g). implement Correction Division Board Parole which, conjunction Prisons Probation Service, operates unique features program. 5005. An important element person fit person, crime convicted. Classification agencies established Director appropriate treatment. 5014, 5015. Further, range broad flexibility. both adapt facilities, contract private agencies, order institutional vary according person's progress lack it. 5011, integral segregation persons, insofar practicable, so similarly committed, avoid influence association hardened inmates serving sentences. 5011. addition treatment, empowered conditional supervision officers providing supervision.10 5007, 5017, 5019. Conditional mandatory fixed statutory formula. 5017. unconditional discharge unconditionally A powerful tool do so, rested automatically aside. 5021(a). Similarly, alternative i.e., placement provisions, himself exercise unconditionally. 5021(b). This, too, result automatic setting aside 13 foregoing describes Act.11 concern operation alternatives, decision employ preserved power 'any provision.' question we now turn. III Sentencing Discretion Under 14 (A) 15 language affecting role 5010(d), tells us: 'If shall will 17 effect judge's discretion. history clearly indicates meant enlarge, restrict, permit rehabilitation sort. 'The proposed legislation discretionary use (youth offenders) promote show promise becoming useful citizens ..' Page U.S.Code Cong.Serv. 1950, 3983. (Emphasis added.) purpose procedure offenders).' S.Rep.No.1180, 1st (1949) S.Rep.No.1180). 20 Thus, apart administrative Part II, broaden scope judicial include product studies committee auspices States. views sponsors are particular importance, uniformly preserve unfettered judges. Most pertinent Chairman punishment crime, 8, supra, Judge John Parker, testified Subcommittee Senate Judiciary Committee, conducted hearings bill (S. 2609) enacted Parker stated: '(T)he act interfere (with respect gives merely people. He still give youthful existing nothing prevents that. discretion, thinks can treated advantage bill, instead law. 23 '. N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions possible objection (to Act). They say some fellows ought serious notwithstanding their (the Act) prevent punishment. Nothing man getting 25 deserves executed sentence.' Hearings S. 1114 2609 Committee Judiciary, 43—44 Hearings). 24 same Circuit Orie L. Phillips, subcommittee gave attention offenders. response Senator Kilgore, sponsor 2609, 'takes nothing' (in sentencing) 'away court,' Phillips replied: 'That correct; purely optional.' 69. Earlier said bill: flexibility command send boys up,' Kilgore 'I agree you Id., 67. extent testimony debates addressed invariably reflected view,12 House Report, quoted above, Department Justice, recommended noted 'would deprive present functions sentencing.' Pages 10—11. Report's identical Justice.13 1. confirms conclusion Congress intend alter circumscribe met There virtual unanimity judges, rather newly options. construe incompatible congressional intent; construction odds doctrine. accord long-established authority vesting court.14 26 rule practice firmly established, control over limits allowed statute.' Gurera 40 338, 340—341 (CA8 1930). 27 statutes referred line cases permissible sentences imposed; range, where should challenge. ofender provision' expressly reserved even though terms, thereby limiting assume well-established expression disavow As our shown, exclusive acknowledged, Congress' intention affirm indicated. 29 From constitute standard, why of, limit, discretion.15 short, hold essentially court, example, minimum larger recidivist. failure appears 'too harsh, remedy afforded Congress, guise construction,' Blockburger, S.Ct., '(w)hatever entertained regarding severity (t) hese peculiarly questions policy.' Gore, U.S., 1285. (B) 31 Although way courts, continuing involvement conduct expiration novelty available, importance serve, lies imposing 32 bars limited all. Yates 356 363, 366—367, 766, 768—769, 837 Daniels, 446 967, 972 (CA6 1971); Williams, 407 940, 945 (CA4 1969). 7, Such unmistakably knew provided purpose. 33 'Appellate modification statutorily-authorized entirely different matter careful scrutiny process determined. Rather unjustified incursion into province judge, responsibility is, contrary, necessary incident what always cases.' Hartford, 489 652, 654 (CA5 1974). original.) 34 however, 35 implicit answered manifest desire assure whenever go constitutes sufficient showing requisite implication. each chosen render nugatory; something inference create ad hoc rule. Appellate burden case-by-case examination sure Literal compliance makes decided 36 This provides example problems arising left Counsel's references followed Court's indeed afford argument that, implication, rejected. However implication 'not unclear legally ineligible Act—which error—or realizing eligible, nevertheless opted adult. benefited removed all doubt enlarged exercised. 37 Accordingly, end consistent Reversed 39 MARSHALL, whom DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART join, concurring judgment. today called provision defining circumstances (YCA) scheme ages 22, affording four suspend probation. Alternatively, facility, discharged years, 5010(b), institution term exceed up law offense. 5010(c).1 Finally, adult, that: 42 holding condition precedent ante, 444, patently inconsistent assertion applicability choose reject satisfy admonition construed '(o 43 am convinced 'provides preferred used unless, ." Cox 473 334, 337 1973) (en banc) (emphasis added). And, fundamentally disagree tracking augmented 44 either YCA observation 'preserve unfettered' judge. Ante, 437. various groups modeled English system, achieved success rehabilitating offenders.2 initial proposal, American Law Institute model altogether reposed correctional authority.3 Not surprisingly, proposal brought swift sharp criticism sharply curtailed. next Conference, involved shared powers authorities.4 similar criticism. 1949 finally law, retained points out, drafters repeatedly emphasized "does (sentencing) 45 But very specifically provisions.5 adapted disallows 'impose imprisonment twenty-one unless (Borstal) dealing ..'6 draft provisions actually removed, limited, ultimately 46 scheme. premise people especially, promising subjects rehabilitation.7 was, offenders, 'substitute retributive correct anti-social tendencies. departs mere punitive idea criminals looks rehabilitation.' H.R.Rep. 2979, (1950), Cong. Admin.News 3985.8 inception, corrections establish among goals paramount—that rehabilitation.9 sense, necessarily circumscribed regard effectuates policy permitting deprived rehabilitative therefrom. 47 Report accompanying explained proper: 48 incorrigible help program, law.' (1949). 49 Other aspects underscore legislation, observed 'only about percent (eligible would) eventually (be) sentence(d adults), less.' Hearing 895 78th (1943). instances fail 'more 70 (of rehabilitated' 10; 3993. panoply options10 evidence sufficiently deal 'incorrigible' youth. 50 finds words says uncompromising 'will prerequisite 'shall find' emphasizes specific quality underscored 5010(e) temporarily 5010(d)—whether benfit 51 remove determination, disposition Act; 'sound deny exceptional determines value.' Waters, 141 289, 291, 437 722, 724 (1970). relied point—that another employed remains That not, seems me plain meaning statute—that jduge's 5010(d).12 alternative' facts individual meet requirement—unless, Act.13 337; 292—293, 725—726. Every issue, except below, agreed manner exercises limited. Brooks 497 1059 1974); Kaylor, 491 1133 (CA2 1974) banc); Schenker, 486 318 1973); 1152 (1973) supra; Williams 970 (CA3 MacDonald, 455 1259, 1265 (CA1 1972);14 cf. Small 304 Atlantic 641 (D.C.Ct.App.1973). amendment enacted. 53 recognizes inherent limitation conceived all, ritualistic invocation language. explaining explicit, notes '(t)o nugatory.' 444. Despite protestations, renders nullity. By judges,' 'considered it,' 443, effectively reads unambiguous mandate out parroting hardly indicate mean pronounces litany. through charade saying apparently think remarkable approve empty duplicitous ritual. 54 recitation conclusory required. simply invoking satisfies affords far too little credence deep potential obvious programs. concerns, reuire include, weighed light familiarity Act.15 55 litany bear weight demonstrating compliance. taking unusual step highly area mandated reasoned my view, shaped served. 56 particular, envisions stating adult.16 Courts faced concomitant unanimous en banc Second near-unanimous Columbia Circuit17 "essential knowledgeable administration .." 1139; U.S.App.D.C., 210, 1157. Sixth has, recently, 'necessary 1063. 57 Similarly Fourth recently consideration beneficial ordred state conclusion. 337. fact, below sentence.18 58 Contrary served reasons, serves number policies. First, contribute rationalizing decreasing disparities Articulating assist developing base decisions. Requiring '(s)uch encourage clarify justify, mind, grounds chooses. result, decisions tend, whole, carefully thought out.' Velazquez, 482 139, 142 Accord, Brown, 479 1170, 1172 1973). 59 authorities handling prisoner kind receives take account 60 disclosure aid defendant's premised misinformation inaccuracies material relies. 'A Sphinx-like silence precludes anyone (including parties, (and) .) learning acted error.' 1173; Tucker, 404 589, 592 (1972). 61 Moreover, articulation feeling arbitrary.19 (then Judge) observed: 62 'Justice measured many ways, surest measure fairness receives. anomaly scrupulous protection throughout every stage against neglected dimension fundamental justice.' Shepard 257 293, 294 1958). 63 articulated decision, less apt perceive fate arbitrarily determined.20 Reasoned enhance legitimacy perceived for, Bar Association Project Standards Justice: 64 'It commanding hand shape case, position selects ..'21 65 considerations apply generally,22 suggest context. majority's accusations, wholesale abandonment 'traditional doctrine.' 440. albeit important, rules. urgent specific-finding particularly compelling direct crucial hard look relevant factors, focus value judgments decision. 156 217, 1200 consonant consideration. perceptive observations Senior Fahy essential assure: 66 'firstly, awareness accurate secondly, relating him, coming trial, recommendation section 5010(e); thirdly, Judge, required, related 210—211, 1157 1158 (footnote omitted). 67 mechanism secure expert assistance determining passed '(W)hen availed 5010(e), say, ordered considering findings sentence, additional stated, although, course, prevented reasons.' 1139. 69 ultimate remain pass abdication prepare study. secures adopt assuring adequacy propriety recommendation.23 reason reach believe preferred-sentencing abandoned assumption invalid own, appellate-review yet presented case.24 71 concur reverses remands disagree, suggests purports pass, dicta, Jarratt, 471 226 (CA9 1972), cert. denied, 411 969, 93 2161, 691 (1973); Walker, 469 1377 1972). (DC Ct.App.1973). Title punishable 844(a) knowing intentional controlled substance obtained valid prescription order, otherwise 5010, follows: '(a) '(b) offender, subsection, may, lieu until 5017(c) chapter; '(c) able six date offenses stands 5017(d) chapter. '(d) provision. '(e) desires classification center agency. Within sixty days grant, findings.' 5010 governed part: reasonable notice conditionally offender. When, Director, released recommend Division. release. conviction. 5010(c) later court. computed uninterruptedly conviction.' challenged ground incarceration 5017(c), asserted Rule 11. ground; ruling challenged. contention 3651, opposed Kurzyna, 485 517 11, terminate fully probation, suffers disabilities While disabilities, 5021, offender: Upon division certificate effect. Where thereafter, theretofore conviction, effect.' then, 5021 resentenced 5010(a), achieve early 5021(a) (b). longer originally received, represents seek resentencing back Tr. Oral Arg. 16—18. able, discharge. improper inaccurate information. due claimed explanation deprivation. address contention, Appeals, petition certiorari. Chemical company Dumas Independent School Dist., 361 376, 386 12, 80 474, 480, 384 (1960); Irvine California, 347 128, 129—130, 74 381, 382, 98 561 (1954); Radio Officers' Union NLRB, 17, 323, (1954). 1941 Stone crime. appeals undertook 1942, adopted 1943. became 1950. ordinarily applied 18, Juvenile Delinquency 5031 seq. And certain multiple are, despite qualifying age, barred D.C.Code Ann. 22—3202(d)(1). contrast, termed 'young adult' groun(d) from' 4209. Of juveniles, 1952, amended 5024 added 5025 5026, extend coverage Columbia. Statutes-at-Large 1967, sections, withdrawing commitment Control periods Commissioner Columbia, delegate D.C. Corrections, continuity recognition difficulty ascertaining type permits above where, study, reports days. 5010(e). testify accord. Carroll Hincks, studying predecessor talk themselves want Very well, it.' 57. Bolitha Laws, told optional situation. feels respects perfect perhaps rarely, them. things. admit exactly now.' 15. James V. Bennett, Prisons, similarly: like reemphasize Laws done, .. (I)t difficult conceive anybody rightfully object 25. During debate 'Its grant facilities try methods. Use mandatory.' 96 Cong.Rec. 8267 (1950). discussion debates. if, receiving pre-sentence diagnosis 'incorrigible program.' 5. remark context hve indicated temporary citing illustratively prototype likely drafting (now Kaufman 'At nation free world conclusively, decisively determination.' Symposium, Review Sentences, F.R.D. 257, 260—261 (1962). Professor Sanford Kadish 'discretion matters virtually guidance,' Kadish, Legal Norm Police Processes, 75 Harv.L.Rev. 904, 916 unwilling ascribe import, sub silentio, Marvin E. Frankel (SDNY) rulings, see, e.g., Civ.Proc. 52(a), '(t) announcement prison Frankel, Lawlessness Sentencing, U.Cin.L.Rev. simple included 1943, 895, Tit. Sess. strengthens encumbrance process. actual duration authorities. 3—6 ALI, Model Authority (Official Draft 1940); id., comment, 35—36. H.R. 2140, 3, III, 1(c). 17(2), 58. 1—4. criticism, preference enacting YCA. See, 1133, 1136 726 (1970); Carter 113 123, 125, 283, 285 Emulating wide maximum, medium, security institutions utilized, long- short-term provided, compare 5010(c), services available. ordr unsuccessful effort bonds introduced amend 'Nothing preclude 3290, 92d Sess (1972); 118 6776-6788 positive obserse 4209 'court (such) Kayor, 1137. Subsequently (1972), First precluded tendencies corrected, hence derived 1381 4. 1059, 1062—1063 1157—1158 banc). 17(3), asserts, 440 'did system.' claim, relies descriptions decade legislation. Those comments directed YCA, indicia questionable best. hand, considerable did, least marked similarity no-benefit Only MacKinnon, participating Circuit, dissented 'to Act,' leaving encompassed Third Fifth cae alone sufficient. requirement, Hoyt 73—2435, presently Circuit. Ninth thereof. leading '(t)he absence purported justification familiar understandable sources bitterness prison.' M. Without Order 42—43 advisable underlying presence defendant, writing record. Sentences (Approved 1968). For Alternatives Procedures 5.6(ii) commentary (b), 270 271 1968); 2.3(') (e), 45—47 39—49 R. Goldfarb Singer, Conviction 191—195 Wyzanski, Trial Judge's Freedom Responsibility, 1281, 1292—1293 (1952); Youngdahl, remarks Opening Program, 387, 388 (1964); North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 726, 89 2072, 2081, 656 (1969); Kent 383 541, 561, 86 1045, 1057, 84 (1966). Norcome, 375 F.Supp. (D.C.1974); Tillman, 374 215 (D.C.1974). Respondent agrees never itself bound standard. Brief 40—41.

Classification Label: 1