SCOTUS Says Judge May Consider Post-Sentencing Rehabilitation at Resentencing
In a new decision earlier today, Pepper v. United States (No. 09-6822), the United States Supreme Court ruled that federal district judges may consider post-sentencing rehabilitation when a case is remanded for resentencing. This may sound like a very technical question of criminal procedure, but the facts in Pepper nicely illustrate the human dimension to the question. Pepper was convicted of meth trafficking and faced a Guidelines sentence of 97-121 months. The judge departed downward, however, and imposed a sentence of 24 months. In June 2005, the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for resentencing. In the interim, Pepper completed his 24 months and was released. In May 2006, the district held a resentencing hearing, at which much evidence was presented of Pepper’s successful post-sentencing rehabilitation, including completion of drug treatment, commencement of college courses, and part-time employment. Pepper’s probation officer recommended that the original sentence be reinstated, and the district judge agreed. The government appealed, and the Eighth Circuit again reversed, ruling that post-sentencing rehabiltiation was an impermissible sentencing factor. The case then bounced around inconclusively in the court system for several years before finding its way to the Supreme Court. Pepper, still free, has apparently continued to do quite well in school and work. The question now is whether he must nonetheless be returned to prison after five years in the community, which would likely wreck much of what he has accomplished for himself and his family.
In holding that post-sentencing rehabilitation is a permissible consideration at resentencing, the Court addressed a couple of notable legal questions. What is perhaps most remarkable about Pepper, however, is not the legal analysis, but the prefatory rhetoric with which it was framed.