Molina-Martinez v. United States
578 U.S. ____ (2016) (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a sentencing court uses an incorrect, higher Sentencing Guidelines range that was not objected to at trial, the defendant can typically show the error affected their substantial rights for plain error review without providing additional evidence of prejudice beyond the error itself.
Facts:
- Saul Molina-Martinez pleaded guilty to being unlawfully present in the United States after a prior deportation for an aggravated felony conviction.
- A U.S. Probation Office presentence report calculated his criminal history based on five prior aggravated burglary convictions.
- The report treated these five convictions, for which Molina-Martinez was sentenced on the same day, as separate offenses.
- This calculation resulted in a criminal history category of VI and an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 77 to 96 months in prison.
- Under the correct application of the Guidelines, the five burglary convictions should have been treated as a single sentence because they were imposed on the same day and were not separated by an intervening arrest.
- The correct calculation would have resulted in a criminal history category of V and a lower advisory Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months.
- At the sentencing hearing, the government argued for a 96-month sentence (the top of the incorrect range), while Molina-Martinez's counsel argued for a 77-month sentence (the bottom of the incorrect range).
Procedural Posture:
- Molina-Martinez pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court.
- The District Court adopted the presentence report's incorrect Guidelines calculation and sentenced Molina-Martinez to 77 months imprisonment, the low end of the incorrect range.
- Molina-Martinez did not object to the miscalculation during the sentencing hearing.
- Molina-Martinez appealed his sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- His counsel filed an Anders brief, but Molina-Martinez, in a pro se filing, identified the error.
- The Fifth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, affirmed the District Court's sentence, holding that Molina-Martinez failed to show his substantial rights were affected because his 77-month sentence also fell within the correct range and he offered no 'additional evidence' of prejudice.
- The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court, granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant who failed to object to a sentencing court's calculation of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range have to show more than the application of an incorrect, higher range to demonstrate that the error affected his substantial rights for the purpose of plain error review?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. A defendant does not need to show more than the application of an incorrect, higher Guidelines range to demonstrate that the error affected his substantial rights. The Guidelines serve as the essential 'starting point' and 'initial benchmark' for all federal sentences, anchoring the court's discretion. When a court begins its analysis with a higher range, the entire sentencing framework is skewed, creating a reasonable probability that the ultimate sentence was affected, even if it also falls within the correct range. To require 'additional evidence' of prejudice is unworkable, as judges often do not provide extensive explanations for within-Guidelines sentences, leaving defendants with no such evidence to find. Therefore, in the ordinary case, pointing to the application of an incorrect, higher range will be sufficient to satisfy the third prong of the plain error test.
Concurring - Justice Alito
No. While the Fifth Circuit's rigid rule requiring additional evidence is incorrect and Molina-Martinez met his burden here, the majority goes too far in speculating about how often this standard will be met in 'most' future cases. The influence of the advisory Guidelines may change over time as new judges who did not operate under the old mandatory system are appointed. Courts should determine prejudice based on a case-specific, full-record assessment rather than relying on the majority's broad predictions, which might be misconstrued as directives. The determination of whether a defendant has shown a reasonable probability of a different outcome should depend on the particular facts and circumstances of each case.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a circuit split and clarifies the standard for plain error review of unpreserved Sentencing Guidelines errors, rejecting the Fifth Circuit's rigid 'additional evidence' requirement. By emphasizing the powerful anchoring effect of the Guidelines, even in their advisory capacity, the Court makes it easier for defendants to obtain relief for clear calculation errors. The ruling effectively creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice in most cases of unpreserved Guidelines errors, shifting the practical burden to the government to point to evidence in the record demonstrating the error was harmless, even though the formal burden of persuasion remains with the defendant.
Unlock the full brief for Molina-Martinez v. United States