Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D pleaded guilty to one count of making a threatening interstate communication. D sent an e-mail threatening to kill his ex-wife and her new husband. D also sent 'dozens' of similar e-mails in violation of a restraining order. The presentence report also reported that D had asked another inmate to kill his ex-wife's new husband. The PSR recommended a Guidelines sentencing range of 41-to-51 months of imprisonment, based on enhancements for violating court protective orders, making multiple threats, and intending to carry out those threats. P made no objection to the PSR but advised the court that it intended to call D's ex-wife as a witness at the sentencing hearing. Four witnesses testified at the sentencing hearing. D's cellmate testified that D 'was obsessed with the idea of getting rid of' his ex-wife's husband. D testified stating that he accepted responsibility for the e-mails, but that he did not really intend to carry out his threats. D denied speaking to his cellmate about killing his ex-wife's husband. The court imposed a sentence of 60 months of imprisonment to be followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. D objected as he did not have notice of the intent to upwardly depart. The judge ruled that D had notice that the guidelines were only advisory and the court could sentence anywhere within the statutory range. The Court of Appeals affirmed reasoning that Rule 32(h) did not apply because 'the above-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court, in this case, was a variance, not a guidelines departure.' The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co