Woltman pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement which included a provision whereby he waived his right to appeal any sentence of 27 months’ imprisonment or less – the top of the advisory Guidelines range estimated in that agreement. Then, after signing that agreement but before sentencing, Woltman cooperated with the government and a 5K1.1 letter was filed. Both sides then urged the district court (Judge Platt) to impose a sentence below the advisory Guidelines range. However, the district court refused to consider the 5K1.1 letter, concluding that the plea agreement controlled, and that, “in urging consideration of the 5K1.1 letter, the parties were improperly attempting to repudiate or modify the Agreement – and repeatedly rebuked them for doing so.”

Basically, “the district court believed that because of the appeal waiver, any sentence at or below 27 months was appropriate, regardless of whether or how the 5K1.1 letter and the 3553(a) factors – if considered – would bear on the sentence.”

The district court sentenced Woltman to 18 months and he appealed. The government then moved to dismiss the appeal based on the appellate waiver.

The Circuit stated that it would “not enforce an appeal waiver where – as here – the sentencing decision was reached in a manner that the plea agreement did not anticipate” or “where the sentencing court failed to enunciate any rationale for the defendant’s sentence, this amounting to an abdication of judicial responsibility.” It then described the refusal to consider the 5K1.1 letter and 3553(a) factors as “an error categorically different from a misapplication of a guideline, or a mistake of law, or a dubious finding of fact.”

The Circuit also took the rarely used step of remanding the case to a different judge, citing the “scorn with which Judge Platt approached the matters pertaining to sentencing,” as well as “Judge Platt’s pattern of errors regarding 5K1.1 letters.”

Why the government would actively seek dismissal based on these facts is a mystery. The inflexible manner in which the government approaches this issue is part of the reason that defense attorneys are so concerned about the inclusion of waiver provisions in plea agreements.

The Court held that the subsequent Petition was the first application challenging the new judgment, noting that the errors alleged were new — even those errors which could have been brought in the initial § 2254 Petition.

The Court began by explaining that “the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, applicable to the states as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the type of judicial fact-finding resulting in enhanced sentences under New York’s PFO statute. We also hold that this prohibition was not clearly established until Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).”

The New York Sentencing Law

For first and second felony offenders, the existence or non-existence of a prior felony alone 5 determines the applicable sentencing range.  However, under the PFO statute, a defendant who has been previously convicted of two felonies is a “persistent felony offender.”  Under the PFO statute, the sentencing court must make a finding of at least two prior felony convictions, rendering that defendant a PFO and exposing him or her to an enhanced sentence.  After making that finding, the court turns to whether “the history and character of the defendant and the nature and circumstances of his criminal conduct” is such that the PFO should, in the public interest, be given that enhanced sentence.

Prior Judicial Review

The New York Court of Appeals has repeatedly rejected Sixth Amendment challenges to that sentencing scheme, holding that the existence of the prior felonies alone authorizes the enhanced sentence. See People v. Quinones, 906 N.E.2d 1033, 1034 (N.Y. 2009); People v. Rivera, 833 N.E.2d 7 at 195; People v. Rosen, 752 N.E.2d 844, 846 (N.Y. 2001).

For its part, the Second Circuit has twice held that the New York Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply either Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), or the Supreme Court’s later decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). See Brown v. Miller, 451 F.3d 54, 56-57 (2d Cir. 2006).

The Current Decision

However, today’s decision explains that whatever doubt may have existed about the constitutionality of the NY statute was laid to rest by Blakely.  Blakely, the Court explained, clarified Apprendi by making it unambiguously clear that any fact (other than a prior conviction), no matter how generalized or amorphous, that increases a sentence for a specific crime beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury.

In sum, the Court explained, the PFO statute cannot be squared with the statement by Justice Ginsburg in her opinion for the Court in Cunningham v. California, 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007): “If the jury’s verdict alone does not authorize the sentence, if, instead, the judge must find an additional fact to impose the longer term, the Sixth Amendment requirement is not satisfied.”

In setting Blakely as the tipping point, the Court stated that “the legal rule invoked by petitioners was not clearly established until Blakely clarified Apprendi.”  As such, only those convictions which became final after the Blakely decision will be subject to review.

The Remedy

With respect to the petitioners in the consolidated cases which the Court decided, it remanded for hearings to determine whether application of the statute “had [a] substantial and injurious effect or influence” on each sentence.  Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993).

UPDATE:

The Second Circuit granted the State’s petition for rehearing en banc.  The case will be heard on July 9.

18 U.S.C. § 3583(i) provides that “The power of the court to revoke a term of supervised release for violation of a condition of supervised release . . . extends beyond the expiration of the term of supervised release for any period reasonably necessary for the adjudication of matters arising before its expiration if, before its expiration, a warrant or summons has been issued on the basis of an allegation of such a violation.

In Janiver, the district court had ordered a warrant prior to the end of the term of supervised release.  However, “[b]y its own terms, the order does not issue a warrant; it directs someone else to issue one.”  It wasn’t until two days later that the warrant actually issued, and at that point the term of supervised release had expired.  “Had the probation officer here simply taken the trouble to walk the signed form from the judge to the clerk’s office,” the Court explained, “nothing prevented the warrant from being issued on the same day . . . the issuance of the warrant [was] ordered.”  As such, “under the plain terms of the governing statute the district court lacked power to revoke the supervised release term after its expiration based on Janvier’s last-minute violation of the conditions of his release.”

In that speech, AG Holder cited instances of defendants waiting in jail for weeks or months before finally being assigned a lawyer, and other instances of defendants entering guilty pleas without ever speaking to an attorney. These are not isolated instances, but systemic problems. These instances are nothing less than an actual denial of the right to counsel and should horrify even the most “tough on crime” people.

AG Holder also discussed the problem of overloaded public defenders and the inevitable degradation in the level of representation which results in a constructive denial of the right to counsel.

I have reviewed many trial transcripts where it was quite clear that the defense attorney was not able to put forth all the relevant arguments for the defendant and was unaware of the most basic procedural rules – due to either lack of knowledge or simple lack of preparation. While I certainly fault those attorneys for not recognizing their limitations, I also fault the judges (who are charged with ensuring that the proceedings are fair) and the prosecutors (who should be just as concerned that a defendant is not adequately represented as they are in gaining a conviction).

Every participant in a criminal trial – judge, prosecutor, defense attorney – should be willing and able to point out inadequate representation so that we can all have confidence in the system we have created.

What does this mean?  Nothing new.  This argument has been made and rejected for years.  The real battle now is over revising the Guidelines to use a 1:1 ratio and getting rid of mandatory minimum sentences.