Term: 2012
Docket: 12-62
Marvin Peugh, Petitioner v. United States
- Pro
12-62 PEUGH V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 675 F.3d 736 CERT. GRANTED 11/9/2012 QUESTION PRESENTED: The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual directs a court to "use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced" unless "the court determines that use of the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution." Eight courts of appeals have held that the Ex Post Facto Clause is violated where retroactive application of the Sentencing Guidelines creates a significant risk of a higher sentence. In the decision below, however, the Seventh Circuit has held that the Ex Post Facto Clause is never violated by retroactive application of the Sentencing Guidelines because the Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory. The question presented is: Does a sentencing court violate the Ex Post Facto Clause by using the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing rather than the Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense, if the newer Guidelines create a significant risk that the defendant will receive a longer sentence? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-2184
In the case of Marvin Peugh v. United States, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Peugh who argued that applying updated sentencing guidelines to his case violated the ex post facto clause. The ex post facto clause prohibits laws from retroactively changing legal consequences or punishments for actions committed before enactment of such laws. In 1998 and 1999, Peugh was involved in a fraudulent loan scheme but wasn't indicted until 2008 and sentenced under new guidelines which were harsher than those at the time he committed his crimes. He received a longer sentence as a result -70 months instead of what would have been between 30-37 months under previous guidelines. The court held that this increased risk of higher punishment contravened with fair notice and governmental restraint principles embodied by Ex Post Facto Clause.
In the dissenting opinion for Marvin Peugh v. United States, Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Scalia and Alito, argued that the Ex Post Facto Clause was not violated when a defendant is sentenced under guidelines promulgated after he committed his crimes if those guidelines do not increase the punishment attached to the crime at the time it was committed. They contended that sentencing guidelines are advisory only and judges have discretion in determining sentences within statutory limits set by Congress. Therefore, they believed there's no ex post facto violation because any change in recommended sentence range doesn't legally alter maximum or minimum penalties faced by a defendant when committing a crime. The dissenters also expressed concern about potential implications of majority’s decision on other aspects of federal sentencing system.
