U.S. v. Thompson

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LONNIE JAY THOMPSON, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

Date published: Jun 28, 2004

Case No. 2:04-CR-00095PGC (D. Utah Jun. 28, 2004)

Opinion

Case No. 2:04-CR-00095PGC.

June 28, 2004

ORDER ADVISING PARTIES OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION REGARDING THE FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES

PAUL CASSELL, District Judge

The defendant Lonnie Jay Thompson will be before the court for sentencing on June 29, 2004. For more than fifteen years, sentencings in federal court (such as the defendant's) have been governed by the federal sentencing guidelines. Last Thursday, however, the United States Supreme Court held that the State of Washington's sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional. In Blakely v. Washington, the Court held that Washington's guidelines scheme deprived a defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by increasing his presumptive sentence based on a judge's findings about sentencing factors, rather than a jury's findings.¹ The dissenting judges warned that this ruling would invalidate the federal sentencing guidelines.²

1 ___ S.Ct. ___, 2004 WL 1402697 (June 24, 2004).

2 See, e.g., id. at *16 (O'Connor, J., dissenting) ("Today's decision casts constitutional doubts over [the federal sentencing guidelines]").

In light of this ruling, the Court would request the assistance of the parties in determining whether the defendant is raising any constitutional objection to being sentenced under the Sentencing Guidelines in light of Blakely and, if so, whether that objection is valid.

If possible, the court would like to avoid any delay in this matter. The court therefore invites the parties to submit any briefs that they would like in advance of the hearing and, in addition, to present any oral arguments that they wish on this subject at the hearing.

SO ORDERED.