Supreme Court decides plain error sentencing
BOSTON (The Daily Record Newswire) — A sentencing appeal based on plain error must be decided according to the law in effect at the time of appeal regardless of whether the legal question was settled or unsettled at the time of trial, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.
The defendant in the case, who had pleaded guilty to felony firearm possession charges, sought to appeal his sentence of 60 months. The sentencing guidelines range for the crime was 33 to 41 months, but the judge sought to allow enough time for the defendant to complete the Bureau of Prisons drug program. Though the defendant didn’t object at the time of sentencing, he later filed a motion to correct the sentence, which was denied.
He appealed, seeking reversal of the sentence under Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Tapia v. U.S., holding that federal law precludes a judge from imposing or lengthening a prison term to promote a criminal defendant’s rehabilitation.
The defendant used the ruling in Tapia to argue that the judge in his case committed plain error. But the 5th Circuit disagreed, finding that the determination of plain error must be based on the law at the time of sentencing, not at the time of the appeal.
The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s petition for certiorari and heard arguments in November.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court reversed and remanded.
While acknowledging that “text [of Rule 52], precedents, and background principles do not directly dictate a result here,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, noted that a ruling to contrary would treat more harshly those tried at a time when circuit law is unsettled, even where the issue is resolved before appeal. “[T]o distinguish and treat more harshly cases where a circuit’s law was unclear would simply promote arguments about whether the law of the circuit initially was unclear,” Breyer wrote. Therefore, “the ‘time of error’
interpretation would make the appellate process yet more complex and time consuming.”
Justice Antonin G. Scalia filed a dissenting opinion that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined.
U.S. Supreme Court. Henderson v. U.S., No. 11-9307. Feb. 20, 2013.
________________________________________
Duty to warn of deportation risk not retroactive
BOSTON (The Daily Record Newswire) — The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky requiring defense attorneys to inform non-citizen clients of the deportation risks of guilty pleas does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review, the Court has ruled.
The defendant in the case, on the advice of her attorney, pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 2003 and received a sentence of four years’ probation. At the time she agreed to the plea, she was unaware that the conviction made her an aggravated felon under federal immigration law, triggering automatic removal proceedings.
The defendant moved to have the conviction vacated, basing her claim on ineffective assistance of counsel. While her motion was pending in federal district court, the Supreme Court ruled in Padilla v. Kentucky that attorneys must warn criminal defendants of any adverse immigration consequences of their pleas.
Finding the application of Padilla retroactive, the district court ruled in the defendant’s favor and vacated the conviction.
But the 7th Circuit reversed, holding that Padilla announced a new rule — rather than enunciating a clearly established rule — and therefore was not retroactively applicable. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s petition for certiorari on the issue of retroactivity and heard oral arguments in November.
The Court affirmed in a 7-2 ruling, holding that Padilla does not have retroactive effect.
Before Padilla “[the] Sixth Amendment no more demanded competent advice about a plea’s deportation consequences than it demanded competent representation in the deportation process itself,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority. “This Court announced a new rule in Padilla [and] defendants whose convictions became final prior to Padilla therefore cannot benefit from its holding.”
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sonia M. Sotomayor wrote a dissent that was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
U.S. Supreme Court. Chaidez v. U.S., No. 11-820. Feb. 20, 2013. Lawyers USA No. 993-3823.
________________________________________
Courts can hear patent-related malpractice suits
BOSTON (The Daily Record Newswire) — State courts have jurisdiction to hear a legal malpractice action involving the alleged mishandling of a federal patent matter, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.
The decision reverses a ruling by the Texas Supreme Court.
The plaintiff patented a software program designed to facilitate securities trading. He retained the defendant to pursue a patent infringement action in federal court against various entities. After losing the patent case, the plaintiff sued the defendant for legal malpractice in Texas state court. According to the plaintiff, he lost the patent case because the defendant failed to timely raise a new theory of liability.
The defendant argued that, because 28 U.S.C. §1338(a) provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction in cases “arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents,” a state law claim alleging legal malpractice in the handling of a patent case must be brought in federal court.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
“In this case, although the state courts must answer a question of patent law to resolve [the plaintiff’s] legal malpractice claim, their answer will have no broader effects. It will not stand as binding precedent for any future patent claim; it will not even affect the validity of [the plaintiff’s] patent. Accordingly, there is no ‘serious federal interest in claiming the advantages thought to be inherent in a federal forum.’ Section 1338(a) does not deprive the state courts of subject matter juris?diction,” the Court said.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court.
U.S. Supreme Court. Gunn v. Minton, No. 11-1118. Feb. 20, 2013.
