[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Thursday ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 in Freeman v. United States [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that an individual whose sentence is imposed under a plea agreement may be eligible for a reduced sentence if the US Sentencing Commission (USSC) [official website] subsequently alters the sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA) [text] allows the USSC to create and amend Federal Sentencing Guidelines [materials], and 18 USC § 3582(c)(2) [text] permits a defendant to move for a sentence reduction if the USSC reduces the sentencing guideline after the defendant was sentenced. The Supreme Court, in a plurality, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, held that this section of the SRA also permits an individual who agreed to a plea bargain to move for a sentence reduction if the sentencing court “based” the sentencing on the guideline recommendations. Petitioner William Freeman was indicted for several crimes, including possession with intent to deliver cocaine base, and agreed to serve eight years and eight months in prison in exchange for his guilty plea. The district court accepted that agreement, and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) (FRCP) [text, PDF], the sentence followed federal sentencing guidelines and was binding on the court. Three years into Freeman’s sentence, the USSC retroactively reduced the sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine possession in order to reduce the disparity between crack and powder cocaine offenses. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that defendants who enter into 11(c)(1)(C) agreements cannot benefit from retroactive guideline amendments. In reversing the appeals court’s decision, the Supreme Court looked at the SRA, FRCP and sentencing guideline policy statements to conclude that defendants can move to reduce sentences imposed pursuant to a plea bargain. The plurality reasoned that because courts typically accept plea agreements based on an evaluation of the guideline’s recommended sentence, the SRA applies to 11(c)(1)(C) agreements. In Freeman’s case, the court did in fact rely on the sentencing guidelines, and Freeman is permitted to move for a reduction of his sentence.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion, argued that courts do not necessarily factor in sentencing guidelines when determining whether to implement a plea agreement. However, when a court “expressly” or “evidently” relies on the sentencing guidelines, as in Freeman’s case, defendants should be permitted to move for a reduced sentence. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas, dissented, agreeing with Stomayor’s controlling opinion and suggestion that courts do not accept plea agreements “based on” sentencing guidelines, but disagreed with Sotomayor and the plurality’s conclusion that Freeman could petition for a reduced sentence, concluding that “parties entering a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement must take the bitter with the sweet.”