Term: 2007
Docket: 07-330
Greenlaw v. United States
- Pro
07-330 GREENLAW V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 481 F3d 601 EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE ORDER OF JANUARY 10, 2008: JAY T. JORGENSEN, ESQUIRE, OF WASHINGTON, D.C., IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW. CERT. GRANTED 1/4/2008 QUESTION PRESENTED: In 1937, this Court described as “inveterate and certain,” the principle that an appellee “may not, in the absence of a cross-appeal ... ‘attack the decree with a view either to enlarging his own rights thereunder or lessening the rights of his adversary.” Morely Constr. Co. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 300 U.S. 185, 191 (1937) (citation omitted). In light of this principle, numerous courts have held that a court of appeals may not order an increase in a criminal defendant’s sentence in the absence of an appeal or cross-appeal by the Government. The Eighth and Tenth Circuits, however, have held that courts of appeals may sua sponte order increases in a defendant’s sentence when the district court has failed to impose a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, even if the Government has not appealed or cross-appealed the sentence. The question presented is: Whether a federal court of appeals may increase a criminal defendant’s sentence sua sponte and in the absence of a cross-appeal by the Government. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-1365
In the case of Greenlaw v. United States, Michael Greenlaw was convicted on multiple drug and firearm charges. The District Court sentenced him to 442 months in prison, but the government believed this sentence was too lenient given one of his convictions carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 300 months that should have been imposed consecutively rather than concurrently with other sentences. However, the government did not appeal this decision. When Greenlaw appealed his conviction and sentence to the Eighth Circuit seeking a lesser punishment, the court independently reviewed his entire sentencing package and increased it by ten years without any request from the government for such an increase. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Greenlaw stating that an appellate court cannot increase a defendant's sentence unless requested by the prosecution under what is known as "the cross-appeal rule". This long-standing principle ensures judicial restraint and respects both parties' decisions about whether or not to press their rights on appeal.
In the dissenting opinion for Greenlaw v. United States, Justice Alito argued that the majority's decision was based on an overly rigid interpretation of a rule that should not apply in this case. He contended that while appellate courts generally cannot increase a sentence unless the government appeals (the "cross-appeal rule"), there are exceptions to this principle when it comes to correcting clear legal errors. In his view, Greenlaw’s case presented such an exception as he had been clearly and indisputably sentenced below the mandatory minimum term required by law. Therefore, even without a cross-appeal from the government, Justice Alito believed that it was within the court's power and responsibility to correct this error and impose a lawful sentence. The failure to do so would undermine public confidence in judicial proceedings by allowing manifestly illegal sentences to stand uncorrected.
