Supreme Court reviews sentence guidelines

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in a St. Louis cocaine possession case with implications for criminal sentencing across the country.

Separate cases of a 21-year-old St. Louisan and a 57-year-old retired Marine from North Carolina will be the basis for the court's review of advisory guidelines.

In the Missouri case, a district judge knocked almost two years off the recommended sentence of Mario Claiborne, resulting in a government appeal.

But in the North Carolina case, the appeal came from the defendant, who argues that the imposed 33-month sentence for lying during a federal investigation did not take into account his record of military service and failing health.

The high court's decisions in the two cases could clarify a 5-4 ruling in 2005 striking down mandatory guidelines for sentencing. Since then, two members of the majority have left the court and lower courts have split on how to handle the guidelines.

The Supreme Court now must define how much weight judges should assign to the advisory guidelines and whether a sentence within those guidelines should be presumed reasonable. The second question is what a federal judge must do to justify a sentence significantly below the guidelines.

Justices prodded lawyers from both sides on which permutations of the sentencing system would allow district judges enough freedom to account for case specifics while ensuring uniformity across the justice system.

"What you want is a reason that supports the sentence, " Justice Stephen Breyer said.

In the case of Victor Rita of North Carolina, no reason was necessary. In the district where he was tried, the courts presume reasonableness for sentences within the guidelines.

Rita was convicted of making false statements in connection with a federal investigation into the sale of kits for making machine guns.

Thomas Cochran, Rita's public defender, argued that the guidelines established inappropriate "center of gravity" in sentencing. "Our position is that the presumption (of reasonableness) does violate the 6th amendment," Cochran said.

In the St. Louis case, U.S. District Judge Carol Jackson in 2005 handed down a sentence almost two years shorter than the recommended minimum for Claiborne, who had pleaded guilty to two cocaine-related offenses.

Police arrested Claiborne twice in 2003 for drug-related offenses. In May, he attempted to sell .23 grams of cocaine base to an undercover officer. Six months later, he ditched a bag containing 5.03 grams of cocaine as he ran from officers, according to court documents.

The amount of crack cocaine in Claiborne's possession mandated a five-year minimum term under federal sentencing laws. But his status as a first-time offender also qualified him for a lesser sentence of 37 to 46 months. He received 15 months.

The court is expected to rule on the case by June.