Commentary: Reasonableness presumption is constitutional.

• Date: 02 July 2007

Byline: David Ziemer

The U.S. Supreme Court's long-awaited decision on whether a presumption of reasonableness attaches to a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range was released June 21. The court said it does at the appellate level. However, the court added that district courts should not employ such a presumption when imposing sentence, settling an issue that has divided the Seventh Circuit. Victor Rita was convicted of perjury, making false statements, and obstructing justice, and was sentenced to the bottom of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines range -- 33 months. Rita appealed, claiming the sentence was unreasonable. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the sentence, employing a presumption that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is reasonable. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, but affirmed, in a decision by Justice Stephen Breyer, holding that it was proper for the court of appeals to employ the presumption of reasonableness. Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia wrote concurrences, and Justice David H. Souter wrote a lone dissent. Writing for the majority, Breyer emphasized that the presumption is not binding, but that it represents a "double determination" that the sentence is reasonable -- first, by the Sentencing Commission, and second, by the trial judge. Breyer wrote, "The upshot is that the sentencing statutes envision both the sentencing judge and the Commission as carrying out the same basic sec. 3553(a) objectives, the one, at retail, the other at wholesale." Breyer then proceeded to a lengthy history of how the Commission reaches its sentencing ranges, seeking to embody the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Defending a presumption of reasonableness, Breyer explained, "the courts of appeals' 'reasonableness' presumption, rather than having...