Saul Molina-Martinez, Petitioner v. United States. (SCOTUS 2016)

Summary

The Supreme Court held that when a district court sentences a defendant under an incorrect, higher Sentencing Guidelines range, the error itself can, and in most cases will, suffice to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the error, satisfying the substantial-rights prong of plain-error review under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), even where the sentence imposed falls within both the erroneous and the correct range. It rejected the Fifth Circuit's categorical rule requiring 'additional evidence' of prejudice whenever the ranges overlap, and concluded that on this record Molina-Martinez showed at least a reasonable probability the District Court would have imposed a different sentence had it known 70 months was the lowest appropriate sentence. The Court stressed that the burden of persuasion on prejudice remains with the defendant under Rule 52(b). Justice Alito, concurring in part and in the judgment and joined by Justice Thomas, agreed the Fifth Circuit's approach was wrong and that Molina-Martinez prevailed on these facts, but declined to join the majority's predictions that most forfeiting defendants will be able to show prejudice.

Holding

Whether a defendant sentenced under an incorrect Guidelines range, whose ultimate sentence falls within both the incorrect and correct ranges, must make a further showing of prejudice beyond the erroneous calculation to satisfy Rule 52(b)'s substantial-rights prong.. No. Nothing in the text of Rule 52(b), its rationale, or the Court's precedents supports a categorical 'additional evidence' requirement; when a defendant is sentenced under an incorrect, higher Guidelines range, the error itself can, and most often will, be sufficient to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the error, even if the ultimate sentence falls within the correct range.

Whether Molina-Martinez demonstrated a reasonable probability that the District Court would have imposed a different sentence had it used the correct Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months.. Yes. The District Court adopted the presentence report's erroneous calculations, rejected the Government's request for a top-of-range 96-month sentence, agreed with the defendant's and Probation Office's requests for the bottom of the range, and offered no independent explanation; there is at least a reasonable probability it would have imposed a different sentence had it known 70 months was the lowest sentence the Commission deemed appropriate.

Whether the holding collapses the distinction between Rule 52(a) and Rule 52(b) by forcing the Government to prove the harmlessness of every Guidelines error regardless of preservation.. No. Under Rule 52(b) it remains the defendant rather than the Government who bears the burden of persuasion with respect to prejudice; the decision merely permits a defendant to rely on the fact of an incorrect Guidelines range as evidence of an effect on substantial rights and bars only categorical additional-evidence rules.

Saul Molina-Martinez, Petitioner v. United States.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by