Jason Pepper, Petitioner v. United States (562 U.S. 476)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 2, 2011 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 562 U.S. 476 · 131 S. Ct. 1229
- Decided
- March 2, 2011
- Term
- October Term 2010
- Vote
- 6–2
- Majority author
- Justice Sotomayor
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
- Constitutional ruling
- Federal law held unconstitutional
Opinion excerpt
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. This Court has long recognized that sentencing judges “exercise a wide discretion” in the types of evidence they may consider when imposing sentence and that “[h]ighly relevant — if not essential — to [the] selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics.” Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241, 246-247 (1949). Congress codified this principle at 18 U. S. C. §3661, which provides that “[n]o limitation shall be placed on the information” a sentencing court may consider “concerning the [defendant’s] background, character, and conduct,” and at § 3553(a), which sets forth certain factors that sentencing courts must consider, including “the history and characteristics of the defendant,” § 3553(a)(1). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit concluded in this case that the District Court, when resentencing petitioner after his initial sentence had been set aside on appeal, could not consider evidence of petitioner’s rehabilitation since his initial sentencing. That conclusion conflicts with longstanding principles of federal sentencing law and Congress’ express directives in §§3661 and 3553(a). Although a separate statutory provision, § 3742(g)(2), prohibits a district court at resentencing from imposing a sentence…
Excerpt of a 57,621-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.