Three Supreme Court Decisions; DC v. Heller still waiting
The Supreme Court handed down three decisions today, clarifying issues of standing, the right to counsel, and federal sentencing. The court held 5-4 in Sprint Communications v. APCC Services that an assignee of a claim retains standing even if the assignee has contracted to return all proceeds from the lawsuit to an assignor. In Greenlaw v. United States, in a 6-1-2 decision (Justice Breyer concurring), the court held that an appellate court can not increase a defendant's sentence "acting on its own initiative." Rothergy v. Gillespie County, an 8-1 decision with Justice Thomas dissenting, affirmed that the 6th Amendment right to counsel attaches at the first adversarial proceeding.
Summaries below.
Sprint Communications v. APCC Services was a suit for money damages springing from pay phone “dial-around” programs; typically, a call made from a pay phone will automatically route the caller to a default long-distance provider, but if a dial-around code (like those found on prepaid long-distance cards) is entered, the call will go to a different company. These companies are required to compensate the pay phone provider for the cost of the call. In this case, a group of pay phone providers claimed that the long-distance companies had failed to pay. They assigned their claims to a group of “aggregators,” and arranged for the aggregators to pay the pay phone providers anything they gained from the lawsuit. The Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that even though the aggregators had agreed to pass the money back up the chain, they had standing to sue. The payment agreement must be considered separately from the assignment of the claim for standing purposes. Opinion by Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg. Additional commentary at Conglomerate Blog.
In Greenlaw v. United States, the Court held that a Court of Appeals, “acting on its own initiative,” could not increase a defendant’s sentence. The defendant, Greenlaw, was convicted on seven charges of crack cocaine distribution and carrying of firearms; the District Court sentenced him to 442 months. The government objected at trial that the sentence was insufficient, but failed to preserve the matter on appeal. Greenlaw, however, claimed on appeal that the sentence was unreasonably long. The Court of Appeals found that the plain error doctrine allowed them to review the sentencing issue, and decided that the proper sentence was 622 months. Justice Ginsburg, writing for the court in a 6-1-2 decision, held that absent a Government appeal or cross-appeal, the appeals court cannot impose a greater sentence than was decided upon at trial. Majority joined by Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas. Justice Breyer concurred in the judgment, and joined the dissent's reasoning. Dissent by Justice Alito, joined by Justice Stevens. Further case coverage at On The Docket.
Today, in Rothgery v. Gillespie County, the Court held that the 6th Amendment right to counsel attaches at the first adversary proceeding even when the prosecutor is neither present nor aware of the hearing. This ruling clarifies and affirms McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U. S. 171 (1991), and rejects the 5th Circuit “prosecutorial awareness” standard put forth in Lomax v. Alabama, 629 F.2d 413 (1980). Rothgery had been incorrectly identified as a felon in a computer criminal background check, and was arrested as a felon in possession of a firearm. He was brought before a magistrate at a “15.17 hearing,” where the arresting officer stated the case to the magistrate, and the magistrate set bail. In an 8-1 decision, with Justice Thomas dissenting, the Court held that this “15.17 hearing” was an adversarial proceeding for the purposes of the 6th Amendment, and Rothgery was entitled to counsel. Additional commentary from the Texas criminal justice blog Grits for Breakfast, as well as media coverage of the case (AP Wire).