{"id":86466,"date":"2018-11-29T12:01:34","date_gmt":"2018-11-29T17:01:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/?p=86466"},"modified":"2019-11-05T16:37:45","modified_gmt":"2019-11-05T21:37:45","slug":"plain-error-rule-fifth-circuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/sentencing\/plain-error-rule-fifth-circuit","title":{"rendered":"Plain Error Rule: U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Fifth Circuit"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t

Normally, if a trial court made an obvious mistake in calculating a person\u2019s sentence the mistake should be corrected, right?\u00a0 Well, if the Fifth Circuit had its way, the answer would be \u201cno.\u201d Luckily, the U.S. Supreme Court in a June 2018 decision set the record straight on the proper application of the plain error rule.<\/p>\n

\"U.S.

U.S. Supreme Court : Plain Error Rule<\/p><\/div>\n

In Rosales-Mireles v. United States<\/em><\/a>, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Fifth Circuit, holding that a clear sentencing error made by the trial court should be corrected in most situations, even when the defendant did not object to the mistake. In so holding, the Court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of the plain error rule.<\/p>\n

What Happened in Rosales-Mireles<\/em>?<\/h2>\n

Federal defendant Rosales-Mireles, a Mexican resident, pleaded guilty to entering the United States illegally. At that point, it was the federal district court\u2019s job to determine the appropriate sentence.<\/p>\n

Federal law (18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3553(a)) requires that a court arrive at a sentence that is \u201csufficient, but not greater than necessary\u201d to achieve the four purposes of criminal sentencing, namely retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. While, of course, the district court has the discretion to come up with a sentence that it believes satisfies those goals, the court does not act in a vacuum.<\/p>\n

The court must work within a framework established by Congress. Part of that framework includes the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. In fact, a sentencing court must<\/em> begin its analysis by finding out the appropriate Guidelines range in any given case. Calculating the correct Guidelines range can be a complex process. But, it is necessary to make sure there is some uniformity, predictability, and fairness in sentencing decisions across the nation.<\/p>\n

In Rosales-Mireles\u2019 case, the presentence report created by the Probation Office counted one of his prior convictions twice.\u00a0 That double-counting error resulted in the sentencing court arriving at the wrong Guidelines range.\u00a0 Instead of the Guideline range of 70-87 months applicable to Rosales-Mireles, the sentencing court arrived at a range of 77-96 months based on the double-counting error.<\/p>\n

Rosales-Mireles did not object to the double-counting mistake when he was before the district court, and the court denied his request for a downward departure.\u00a0 The sentencing court then went on to sentence Rosales-Mireles to 78 months (6.5 years) in federal prison. Rosales-Mireles appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and for the first time raised the double-counting error.<\/p>\n

Plain Error Rule: The Legal Standard at Issue<\/h2>\n

Because Rosales-Mireles did not object to the mistake at the trial level, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the matter to see whether a plain error had been made. In that context, the appropriate standard is the one provided in the U.S. Supreme Court case titled United States v. Olano<\/em>. The plain error rule’s four-part standard requires a court to find the following:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The error was not intentionally relinquished or abandoned.<\/li>\n
  2. The error was clear and obvious, i.e., \u201cplain error.\u201d<\/li>\n
  3. There is a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.<\/li>\n
  4. The error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Fifth Circuit\u2019s Decision \u2013 Trying to Make the Standard More Stringent<\/h2>\n

    When running Rosales-Mireles\u2019 case through the four-part test, the Fifth Circuit found, not surprisingly, that (1) Rosales-Mireles did not purposely waive his right to object to the sentencing error, (2) the error was obvious, and (3) Rosales-Mireles\u2019 sentence would likely have been different if there was no error.<\/p>\n

    However, with regard to the fourth part of the Olano<\/em> standard, the Fifth Circuit determined that the sentencing court\u2019s mistake did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or the public reputation of judicial proceedings.<\/p>\n

    That decision, standing alone, might be only cause for debate, given that the 78-month sentence fell within both the mistaken as well as the correct Guideline ranges. Yet, the Fifth Circuit went one step further.\u00a0 The Fifth Circuit tried to change<\/em> the plain error rule standard.<\/p>\n

    Specifically, when stating what the fourth part stood for, the Fifth Circuit determined that the types of errors warranting reversal under the fourth part of the test are ones that would<\/p>\n