U. S. Supreme Court: Absent An Appeal By Government, Court Lacks Authority To Increase Sentence.

In a case decided a couple of days ago, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in GREENLAW v. UNITED STATES, 07–330 (2008), that without a government appeal or cross appeal of a sentence, an appeals court lacks authority to enlarge the defendant's sentence under a "plain error" doctrine.

Here is the Court's opinion analysis:

Petitioner Greenlaw was convicted of seven drug and firearms charges and was sentenced to imprisonment for 442 months. In calculating this sentence, the District Court made an error. Overlooking this Court’s controlling decision in Deal v. United States, 508 U. S. 129, 132–137, interpreting 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(1)(C)(i), and over the Government’s objection, the District Court imposed a 10-year sentence on a count that carried a 25-year mandatory minimum term. Greenlaw appealed urging, inter alia, that the appropriate sentence for all his convictions was 15 years. The Government neither appealed nor cross-appealed. The Eighth Circuit found no merit in any of Greenlaw’s arguments, but went on to consider whether his sentence was too low. The court acknowledged that the Government, while it had objected to the trial court’s error at sentencing, had elected not to seek alteration of Greenlaw’s sentence on appeal. Nonetheless, relying on the “plain-error rule” stated in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), the Court of Appeals ordered the District Court to enlarge Greenlaw’s sentence by 15 years, yielding a total prison term of 662 months.

Held: Absent a Government appeal or cross-appeal, the Eighth Circuit could not, on its own initiative, order an increase in Greenlaw’s sentence.

Editor's comment: The dissenters, Justices Alito, Stevens Breyer, objected to the Majority's ruling on the cross appeal requirement, finding instead that that requirement does NOT deprive an Appeals Court of the authority, sua sponte, to correct plain error.

I tend to agree with the Majority in this case. If the parties are OK with the outcome, why should the Court act on its own and meddle with it, especially where no SUBSTANTIAL miscarriage of justice has occurred?