DA Riebe Comments On Local Impacts Of Supreme Court Decision

Wednesday, 31 January 2007 06:34

DA Riebe Comments On Local Impacts Of Supreme Court Decision

Written by

font size decrease font size increase font size
Print
Email

Rate this item

(0 votes)

Recently, on a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court struck down California's sentencing laws and affirmed, through that decision, that there are limits on a judges' discretion during sentencing. The result could be shorter sentences for thousands of California state prisoners. This ruling is just the latest in a series of High Court rulings that limit judges' discretion in sentencing defendants. The court has held repeatedly that a judge may not increase a defendant's sentence based on factors that were not determined by a jury. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote for the court stating "This court has repeatedly held that, under the Sixth Amendment, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by the jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence," Several states have changed their sentencing laws to require prosecutors to prove to a jury aggravating factors that could lead to longer sentences.

California had argued that a 2005 state Supreme Court decision interpreting the state's Determinate Sentencing Law effectively brought the state into compliance with the U.S. high court's rulings. The law instructs judges to sentence inmates to the middle of three options, unless factors exist that justify the shorter or longer prison term. The state warned that its criminal justice system would be burdened by having to re-sentence thousands of inmates. Rather than prescribing a way to fix the law, Ginsburg said, "The ball lies in California's court." In 2005 there were just under a quarter-million felony convictions in the state and data from the 1980s cited by the California Supreme Court suggests that roughly 15 percent of cases involving just one felony count result in sentences in which a judge, not a jury, finds an aggravating factor to justify the additional punishment.

According to Amador County District Attorney Todd Riebe there could be some impact to those sentenced in Amador County Courts, and his office, as well as DA’s statewide are evaluating the decision and adopting policies to comply with the recent ruling. Riebe states that under the Supreme Court decision if the defendant entered a stipulated plea agreement to receive the aggravated term and waived his right to appeal, the sentence is probably not affected. If the defendant entered an open plea or was found guilty after a jury trial and received the aggravated prison term, then the decision, known as the Cunningham decision, comes into play. Basically, what the decision demands is that if you want to impose the aggravated term, you must have a stipulation to or a jury finding of the presence of at least one aggravating factor, such as abuse of a position of trust, etc. Only then can the aggravated term be imposed. A legislative fix, states Riebe, is possible by changing a "shall" to "may" in the sentencing guidelines. Riebe says this is the simplest remedy, but there is virtually no chance that the State’s Public Safety Committee will agree to that anytime soon due to their own political agenda(s).