About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

66 S. Cal. L. Rev. 621 (1992-1993)
Certain Uncertainty: Appellate Review and the Sentencing Guidelines

handle is hein.journals/scal66 and id is 637 raw text is: ARTICLE CERTAIN UNCERTAINTY: APPELLATE REVIEW AND THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES STEVEN E. ZIPPERSTEIN* I. INTRODUCTION Before November 1, 1987, federal appellate courts played virtually no role in the criminal sentencing process.' The federal appellate courts * Assistant U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles; Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. B.A. 1979, University of Califor- nia (Los Angeles); J.D. 1983, University of California (Davis). The author acknowledges the valua- ble assistance of Roger Haines' Federal Sentencing and Forfeiture Guide in locating appellate decisions under the sentencing guidelines. The views expressed herein are solely the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Justice or the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California. 1. Under the preguidelines system, federal criminal sentences within statutory limits were generally not subject to appellate review. See eg., Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424 (1974) (holding that a sentence within statutory limits is not reviewable absent constitutional concerns); United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446-47 (1972) (same); United States v. Yarbrough, 852 F.2d 1522, 1545 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 488 U.S. 866 (1988) (same). See generally ARTHUR W. CAMp- BELL, LAW OF SENTENCING § 16:4, at 423-25 (1991) (advocating appellate review of criminal sentences); Daniel R. Coburn, Disparity in Sentences and Appellate Review of Sentencing, 25 RUTOERS L. REV. 207, 214-25 (1971) (advocating appellate review of criminal sentences); William W. Wilkins, Jr., Sentencing Reform and Appellate Review, 46 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 429, 430-31 (1989) (examining the role of the appellate courts under the new and the old rules). The only excep- tions to this rule were (1) if the sentencing judge had a rigid policy of refusing to exercise any discretion and always imposed the maximum sentence for a particular offense or (2) if the judge relied solely on an item of information not disclosed to the defendant. United States v. Branco, 798 F.2d 1302, 1305-06 (9th Cir. 1986). In contrast to the federal rule of nonreviewability, several states have provided for appellate sentencing review for a number of years. See, eg., IND. CONsT. art. VII, § 4; ALASKA STAT. § 12.55.120(a) (1992); ARIz. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13-4037(A) (1989); CAL. PENAL CODE § 1260 (%Vest 1982); COLO. REV. STAT. § 18-1-409(1) (1986); CONN. GEN. STAT. § 51-195 (1985); GA. CODE ANN. § 17-10-6(a) (Michie 1990); HAw. REV. STAT. § 641-16 (1985); ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 38, para. 1005-5-4.1 (1982); IOWA CODE § 814.6(1)(a) (1979); MD. CRim. LAW CODE ANN. § 645JA (1992); MASS. GEN. L. ch. 278, §§ 28A-28D (1981); MINN. STAT. § 244.11 (1992); 42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 1386(c) (1983); TENN. CODE ANN. § 40-35-401 (1990). For a thorough discussion of state appellate sentencing review, see Daniel E. Wathen, Disparity and the Need for Sentencing Guidelines

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most