Appealing Sentencing Errors
Failure to object to sentencing errors in the district court constitutes waiver of the right to appeal those issues, in the absence of plain error. Plain error in the sentencing context is error so obvious and substantial that failure to notice and correct it would affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
The plain error exception to the contemporaneous objection requirement allows an appellate court to correct plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights even if they were not brought to the trial court's attention. However, this is applied only sparingly and saves only particularly egregious errors in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.
To reverse for plain error the reviewing of the court must 1. identify error, 2. which is plain, 3. which affects substantial rights, and 4. which seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Even when plain error is clearly established the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals must decide whether to notice the error. The Fourth Circuit makes this determination not by viewing the error in isolation, but by viewing it against the entire record. Only if in context of the proceedings taken as a whole, the error led to the conviction of a defendant who is actually innocent or otherwise seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings will the Fourth Circuit exercise discretion to notice it.
The United States Constitution guarantees a fair trial, not a perfect one. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that most constitutional errors can be harmless. Even errors as serious as improper admission of an involuntary confession, failure to instruct the jury on presumption of innocence, and improper denial of counsel at a preliminary hearing may be harmless in a particular case. When correctly applied, harmless error and structural error analysis produce identical results with unfair convictions being reversed while fair convictions are affirmed.
In fact, the Supreme Court has found an error to be structural, and thus subject to automatic reversal only in a limited class of cases. The test for determining harmlessness is whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.
The outcome of a harmless error analysis is by necessity fact-specific. What may be harmless within the context of one set of facts may prove to be otherwise within the context of another.
If you believe that you or someone you know has been sentenced unfairly, you will need to hire a good appeal lawyer to assist you with your appeal. There are deadlines for certain documents to be filed in the district court to be able to appeal your sentence, so you should contact an appeal attorney immediately after you have been sentenced. Please contact The Mace Firm to set a consultation with one of our appellate attorneys.
Continue reading " Appealing Sentencing Errors " »