The general ‘federal saving statute’ of 1871 sought to clarify the issue of retroactive application of changes to the criminal law. The problem the Court faced was that the language in those two statutes appeared to be contradictory.
The Supreme Court had to look to two other relevant pieces of statute for an answer. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the 2010 applies to all defendants who are sentenced after the law came into effect, no matter when the offenses were actually committed.Īnalysis: Did Congress intend the Fair Sentencing Act to apply to defendants whose offenses predated the Act but whose sentencing hearing postdated it? Unfortunately the Act itself was silent on the issue. The sentences were affirmed on Appeal in both cases. Similarly, Petitioner Dorsey unlawfully sold 5.5 grams of crack in 2008 and in 2010 was given a 10-year sentence in line with the minimum set out in the 1986 Drug Act on the basis of Dorsey’s prior drug conviction. The District Judge sentenced Hill to 10 years on the basis that the Fair Sentencing Act’s reduced 5-year sentence did not apply to those offenders whose offenses were committed before the Act’s effective date. The Fair Sentencing Act increased the amount of crack needed to trigger the 5-year minimum from 5 to 28 grams and the amount for the 10-year minimum from 50 to 280 grams while leaving the powder amounts as they were. Under this Act, a 10-year minimum was triggered by a conviction for possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams of cocaine (compared to 5000 grams of cocaine powder). At the time the offense was committed, the un-amended 1986 Anti Drug Abuse Act applied. Holding : The more lenient penalties of the Fair Sentencing Act applied to those offenders whose crimes preceded the date the Act came into effect but who were sentenced after that date.įacts: Petitioner Hill unlawfully sold 53 grams of crack in 2007 but was not sentenced until December 2010. In other words: Did Congress intend the Fair Sentencing Act to apply to defendants whose offenses predated the Act but whose sentencing hearing postdated it? The issue was whether the amendments applied to those defendants whose offenses were committed before the effective date. 3553(a)(4)(A)(ii) became effective on Novemand reduced the disparity between offenses involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. Issue: The Fair Sentencing Act, 18 U.S.C. 2321ĭecided : JSupreme Court of the United States The Fair Sentencing Act which reduced the crack-to-powder cocaine sentencing disparity, applies to those offenders whose crimes preceded the effective date of the Act but who were sentenced after that dateĭorsey v.
0 kommentar(er)
