Were you or someone you know sentenced under current federal sentencing guidelines for a crime committed some time ago? If so, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision may mean there is hope.
In Peugh v. United States, U.S. S.Ct. 12-62 (June 10, 2013), Petitioner Peugh was convicted of bank fraud for conduct that occurred in 1999-2000. Under the 1998 Sentencing Guidelines, his sentencing range was 30 to 37 months, but under the 2009 Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing, the sentence was enhanced to a range of 70 to 87 months.
The United States District Court rejected an ex post facto claim and sentenced defendant Peugh to 70 months in prison. Ex post facto, Latin for "from after the action" or "after the fact (also called a retroactive law) is a law that changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the enactment of the law. . The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction. In an opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the United States Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that sentencing a defendant such as Peugh to a longer term of incarceration under Guidelines promulgated after the commission of the criminal acts, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.
The Court rejected the government"s argument that, after the 2005 holding in Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220, which held that the federal sentencing guidelines were not mandatory but still must be consulted in an advisory manner in determining the appropriate sentence in a particular case, lacked sufficient legal effect to have the status of "law" within the meaning of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court rejected the Government's argument, reasoning that the fact that federal judges still retained discretion under the advisory regime of the guidelines, was insufficient to displace the express constitutional protections.
Therefore, if you, or someone you know, is serving a prison sentence handed down by a court that did not utilize a sentencing guideline system in effect at the time that the crime was committed but referred to guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing (about 95% of all convictions), you may well be in a position to mount a collateral attack your conviction and sentence by availing yourself (or your friends or relatives) of the statutory form of Writ of Habeas Corpus enshrined in 28 U.S.C. Sections 2254 (state convictions) or 2255 (federal convictions), or Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in State or Federal Custody.
This is true even if you appealed your conviction (direct attack) and your appeal was denied, and even if you previously mounted a prior collateral attack on your sentence based upon the foregoing statutes, since the Peugh opinion constitutes a "change in the law" for purposes of post-conviction remedies.
As the Supreme Court has long held, "any additional time in prison is always of significance under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution." Moreover, as you, your relatives or friends, well know, any additional amount of prison time is just more time away from your life and that of your relatives and/or friends, time that you can never live again or make up for.
Raoul J. Severo, Esq.
In Peugh v. United States, U.S. S.Ct. 12-62 (June 10, 2013), Petitioner Peugh was convicted of bank fraud for conduct that occurred in 1999-2000. Under the 1998 Sentencing Guidelines, his sentencing range was 30 to 37 months, but under the 2009 Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing, the sentence was enhanced to a range of 70 to 87 months.
The United States District Court rejected an ex post facto claim and sentenced defendant Peugh to 70 months in prison. Ex post facto, Latin for "from after the action" or "after the fact (also called a retroactive law) is a law that changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the enactment of the law. . The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction. In an opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the United States Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that sentencing a defendant such as Peugh to a longer term of incarceration under Guidelines promulgated after the commission of the criminal acts, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.
The Court rejected the government"s argument that, after the 2005 holding in Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220, which held that the federal sentencing guidelines were not mandatory but still must be consulted in an advisory manner in determining the appropriate sentence in a particular case, lacked sufficient legal effect to have the status of "law" within the meaning of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court rejected the Government's argument, reasoning that the fact that federal judges still retained discretion under the advisory regime of the guidelines, was insufficient to displace the express constitutional protections.
Therefore, if you, or someone you know, is serving a prison sentence handed down by a court that did not utilize a sentencing guideline system in effect at the time that the crime was committed but referred to guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing (about 95% of all convictions), you may well be in a position to mount a collateral attack your conviction and sentence by availing yourself (or your friends or relatives) of the statutory form of Writ of Habeas Corpus enshrined in 28 U.S.C. Sections 2254 (state convictions) or 2255 (federal convictions), or Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in State or Federal Custody.
This is true even if you appealed your conviction (direct attack) and your appeal was denied, and even if you previously mounted a prior collateral attack on your sentence based upon the foregoing statutes, since the Peugh opinion constitutes a "change in the law" for purposes of post-conviction remedies.
As the Supreme Court has long held, "any additional time in prison is always of significance under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution." Moreover, as you, your relatives or friends, well know, any additional amount of prison time is just more time away from your life and that of your relatives and/or friends, time that you can never live again or make up for.
Raoul J. Severo, Esq.
