Rosales-Mireles v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Rosales-Mireles v. United States
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: February 21, 2018
Decided: June 18, 2018
Outcome
Fifth Circuit reversed
Vote
7 - 2
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch


Rosales-Mireles v. United States is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on February 21, 2018. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

The issue in this case was whether the plain error standard of review requires an error to be severe enough that it “would shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge" before the court should correct the error.[1] Plain error is a threshold standard of review that applies to claims that were not raised before the lower court. Generally, a party must raise an issue in the lower court in order to raise it on appeal. However, under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, "A plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the [lower] court’s attention."[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: A probation officer accidentally double-counted one of Petitioner Florencio Rosales-Mireles' convictions, resulting in a higher criminal history score than Rosales-Mireles deserved. The district court sentenced Rosales-Mireles under that higher score. Rosales-Mireles appealed, arguing that the double counting constituted plain error and warranted new sentencing under the corrected score. The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the sentence, ruling that the double counting was not a sufficiently serious error to warrant reversal.
  • The issue: Must an error "shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge" to meet the plain error standard for reversal?
  • The outcome: On a vote of 7 - 2, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit.[3]


    • In brief: Following petitioner Florencio Rosales-Mireles' criminal conviction, the probation officer in charge of reviewing Rosales-Mireles' criminal history accidentally counted one conviction twice, resulting in a higher criminal history score. Rosales-Mireles was sentenced by the district court based on that higher score. On appeal, Rosales-Mireles argued that the double counting constituted plain error that required reversal of his sentence and remand for resentencing with the correct criminal history score. The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit denied his request. While the court agreed that the double-counting was an error, it ruled that in order to reverse and correct the mistake, an error must rise to the level of an error that “would shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge" in order to justify reversal. The court ruled that the probation officer's double counting did not meet that standard and affirmed Rosales-Mireles' sentence.

    You can review the lower court's opinion here.[1]

    Background

    Legal question

    This was a case about the plain error standard of review. The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit summarized the plain error standard:

    “ To establish plain error, Rosales-Mireles must show (1) an error; (2) that was clear or obvious; and (3) that affected his substantial rights. If the above three prongs are satisfied, we have the discretion to remedy the error—discretion which ought to be exercised only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.[1][4][5] ”


    The issue in this case was the type of error that should trigger the court to use its remedial discretion—in other words, how severe an error must be before the court can exercise its discretion to reverse, assuming the first three prongs of the test are met. Quoting an earlier United States Supreme Court case, the Fifth Circuit concluded, “The types of errors that warrant reversal are ones that would shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge."[1]

    Case background

    Rosales-Mireles was convicted of illegal entry into the country. To determine the appropriate range for a criminal sentence, the state calculates a criminal history score for each defendant. In calculating Rosales-Mireles' score, a probation officer accidentally double-counted one of Rosales-Mireles' earlier convictions. As a result of the double-counting, Rosales-Mireles' score was higher than it should have been. With the double-counting, Rosales-Mireles' score placed him in the 77–96 month sentencing range. Without the double-counting, Rosales-Mireles' correct score would have placed him in the 70–87 month sentencing range. The district used the 77-96 score, in part, to determine Rosales-Mireles' sentence of 78 months' imprisonment.[1] Rosales-Mireles did not raise the issue of the double-counting before the trial court.

    Rosales-Mireles appealed his sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, arguing that the double-counting was plain error and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The government conceded the double-counting error, but argued that the sentence was not substantively unreasonable and did not meet the standard for reversal.[1]

    Panel opinion

    The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit applied the plain error test to Rosales-Mireles' appeal. It concluded that 1) the double-counting was an error, and 2) the error was obvious, meeting the first two prongs of the test. The third prong, the court wrote, required Rosales-Mireles to show “a reasonable probability that, but for the district court’s misapplication of the Guidelines, he would have received a lesser sentence." The court ruled, "We cannot say that the district court explicitly and unequivocally indicate[d] that [it] would have imposed the same sentence . . . irrespective of the Guidelines range."[6] Therefore, it continued, Rosales-Mireles met the third prong of the test.[1]

    The remaining issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion to correct the error. The court ruled:

    “ We decline to exercise our discretion in this case. We sometimes exercise discretion to correct a plain error where the imposed sentence is materially or substantially above the properly calculated range....Here, there is no discrepancy between the sentence and the correctly calculated range. The court sentenced Rosales-Mireles to 78 months, which is in the middle of the proper range of 70–87 months. We cannot say that the error or resulting sentence would shock the conscience. Thus, we elect not to exercise our discretion.[1][7][5] ”


    The court affirmed Rosales-Mireles' sentence.

    Petitioner's challenge

    The petitioner challenged the holding of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. He argued that the court should not have required an error to "shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge" in order to warrant reversal.[8]

    Certiorari granted

    On June 5, 2017, the petitioner initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted petitioners' request for certiorari on September 28, 2017. Argument in the case was held on February 21, 2018.[8]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "In United States v. Olano, this Court held that, under the fourth prong of plain error review, '[t]he Court of Appeals should correct a plain forfeited error affecting substantial rights if the error "seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings."' 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993). To meet that standard, is it necessary, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals required, that the error be one that 'would shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of Justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge?'"[8]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[9]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[10]

    Outcome

    Decision

    On a vote of 7 - 2, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit.[3]

    Majority opinion

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the opinion for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, and Elena Kagan.

    Sotomayor wrote, "The Fifth Circuit’s standard is unduly restrictive." Allowing for relief only for errors that shocked the conscience, she said, "too narrowly confines the extent of a court of appeals’ discretion." She wrote that the Fifth Circuit had raised the standard beyond what the Supreme Court had previously required.

    “ That standard is not reflected in Rule 52(b) itself, nor in how this Court has applied the plain-error doctrine. The Court repeatedly has reversed judgments for plain error on the basis of inadvertent or unintentional errors of the court or the parties below. The Court also routinely remands cases involving inadvertent or unintentional errors, including sentencing errors . . . The Court has never said that errors must amount to a 'powerful indictment' of the system, a phrase which implies by its terms that the only errors worthy of correction are those that rise to the level of grossly serious misconduct. Similarly, the Fifth Circuit’s emphasis on the 'competence or integrity of the district judge' narrows Olano’s instruction that an error should be corrected if it seriously affects 'judicial proceedings.' In articulating such a high standard, the Fifth Circuit substantially changed Olano’s fourth prong.[3][11][5] ”


    She concluded, "In the ordinary case, as here, the failure to correct a plain Guidelines error that affects a defendant’s substantial rights will seriously affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceeding." The court reversed the Fifth Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.[3]

    Dissent

    Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Samuel Alito. Thomas argued that the majority's ruling "contravenes long-established principles of plain-error review." Thomas wrote that the plain error standard was intentionally demanding. "If the standard were not stringent, there would be nothing prevent[ing] a litigant from sandbagging the court—remaining silent about his objection and belatedly raising the error only if the case does not conclude in his favor.”[3]

    “ The sentence that Rosales-Mireles received was not only within both the improperly and properly calculated Guidelines ranges but also in the bottom half of both possible ranges. Leaving that reasonable sentence in place would not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. A sentence that is substantively reasonable is hardly the kind of particularly egregious erro[r] that warrants plain-error relief.[3][5] ”


    Text of the opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, "Rosales-Mireles v. United States" Opinion, March 6, 2017
    2. ↑ Justia, "Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure," accessed January 4, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 United States Supreme Court, "Rosales-Mireles v. United States Opinion, June 19, 2018
    4. ↑ Internal citations, quotations, and emphasis omitted.
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Internal quotations omitted.
    7. ↑ Internal citations and quotations omitted; emphasis in original.
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Supreme Court of the United States, "Rosales-Mireles v. United States" Question Presented, September 28, 2017
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Rosales-Mireles v. United States, argued February 21, 2018
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Rosales-Mireles v. United States, argued February 21, 2018
    11. ↑ Internal quotations and citations omitted.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rosales-Mireles_v._United_States&oldid=8892403"