By Robert C. Brooks
The en banc decision in
Vonner casts considerable doubt as to how the Sixth
Circuit will view future sentencing scenarios.
The dissenting opinions give
insight into the meaning of the majority opinion. Judge Moore
talks about that part of the opinion where the court held that
the plain-error review was appropriate because the defendant
did not properly object to the district court’s alleged
failure to explain the sentence in sufficient detail. She said
that because the court failed to address the first point of
plain-error review, “Did the court err?”, it:
fails to provide guidance to
the district courts and litigants in this circuit as to
whether the district court’s cursory explanation of Vonner’s
sentence is acceptable. The majority recognizes that “[n]o one
would call [the district court’s] explanation ideal,” ... but
district courts and litigants are left to wonder whether such
a sentence and brief explanation would be reversed or affirmed
on appeal in a future case in which the defendant lodges a
post-sentence objection, as the majority today requires. The
majority’s required reasonableness review into mere
plain-error review when a defendant does not raise a separate
objection to the “procedural reasonable-ness” of his sentence
at the time of sentencing, the majority evades the
responsibility, imposed on us by Gall, to ensure that a
defendant is afforded the opportunity to have his sentencing
arguments considered and is given an adequate explanation of
the reasons for the deprivation of his liberty...
(slip opinion, page 21) (some
citations omitted).
See this complete article and more in the
April - May 2008 issue of
For
the Defense, TACDL's bi-monthly publication for
members. Join
today and receive your copy!