How Federal Sentencing Guidelines Work in Texas

How Federal Sentencing Guidelines Work in Texas

The federal sentencing guidelines are used to determine criminal sentences in federal cases across the United States, including here in Texas. They were created back in 1984 with the Sentencing Reform Act, in order to make federal sentencing more consistent and fair across the country. But how exactly do these guidelines work when it comes to criminal cases in Texas?

Well, the guidelines basically take into account both the seriousness of the crime itself, and the defendant’s criminal history. They provide a kind of formula to calculate a recommended sentencing range based on these factors. Judges use the guidelines as a starting point, but they aren’t absolutely binding – judges can impose sentences outside the guideline range if they feel it’s warranted.

Determining the Offense Level

The first thing the guidelines look at is the offense itself. There are 43 different offense levels, ranging from 1 (least serious) to 43 (most serious). The more serious the crime, the higher the offense level. To determine the offense level, the guidelines look at a few things:

• The “base offense level” – this depends on the type of crime committed
• Specific offense characteristics – things that make the crime more or less serious
• Adjustments for the defendant’s role in the offense
• Adjustments for obstructing justice, accepting responsibility, etc.

All these factors are added up to land on a final offense level number. For example, let’s say someone is convicted of bank robbery. The base offense level for robbery is 20. But if a gun was involved, that adds 5 levels. And if over $50,000 was stolen, that’s another 2 levels. So the final offense level would be 27.

Determining the Criminal History Category

Next, the guidelines look at the defendant’s criminal record to assign a criminal history category between I and VI. Category I is for defendants with little to no criminal history, while Category VI is for repeat offenders with extensive records. Things considered include:

• Prior convictions
• Whether the defendant was on probation, parole, etc. when the crime occurred
• How long ago past crimes occurred

For example, someone with a couple of minor convictions more than 10 years ago would likely end up in Category I. But someone with several recent, serious convictions would be a Category VI.

The Sentencing Table

Once the offense level and criminal history category are determined, the guidelines have a sentencing table that shows the recommended range. For example, with an offense level of 27 and criminal history Category I, the range is 70-87 months. The judge will generally sentence within that range – although they have discretion to go outside it if they feel its justified, like giving a higher sentence for a particularly heinous crime.

Mandatory Minimum Sentences

One thing that can limit judicial discretion in sentencing are mandatory minimums – laws that require a judge to impose at least a certain minimum prison term for some crimes. These are set by statute and a judge cannot go below them, even if the guidelines recommend a lower sentence. Some common federal mandatory minimums include:

• 5 years for drug trafficking offenses involving 5+ grams of crack or 500+ grams of powder cocaine
• 10 years for drug trafficking offenses involving larger quantities
• 10 years for certain firearms offenses

So if a guideline range was lower than the mandatory minimum, the judge would have to impose the minimum. Mandatory minimums have faced a lot of criticism for limiting judicial discretion too much and sometimes resulting in overly harsh sentences.

Departures and Variances

There are certain circumstances where a judge can impose a sentence outside the guideline range. This is called a “departure” if it’s based on provisions within the guidelines themselves. For example, the guidelines allow departures if the defendant provided substantial assistance to prosecutors. Or if the criminal history score over-represents the defendant’s actual past crimes. Judges can also issue “variances” – sentences outside the guidelines based on the general sentencing factors laid out in a Supreme Court case called United States v. Booker. For example, a judge could issue a variance if they believe the guideline range is simply too harsh for the particular defendant and circumstances of the case.

Appellate Review

Defendants can appeal their sentences if they believe the court made a mistake in applying the guidelines or think their sentence is unreasonable. The appeals court will review the sentence for procedural errors and determine whether it’s substantively reasonable based on the case facts. However, sentences within the guideline range are presumed reasonable on appeal. So it can be an uphill battle challenging a within-guidelines sentence.

Recent Changes and Criticisms

There have been some changes to federal sentencing in recent years. For one, the Supreme Court ruled in Booker that the guidelines are only advisory, not mandatory. This gave judges back more discretion. There has also been growing criticism of mandatory minimum sentences from both judges and reform advocates. Some common critiques include:

• They undermine judicial discretion and can lead to unjust punishments
• They have a disproportionate impact on minorities
• They result in over-incarceration of non-violent drug offenders

Some reform bills have been proposed to scale back mandatory minimums, but major changes have not yet passed Congress. The guidelines continue to face criticism that they are overly harsh and complex. But they remain the starting point for federal sentencing in Texas and nationwide.

The Bottom Line

While judges have more flexibility after Booker, the guidelines still carry significant weight in federal sentencing in Texas. Defense lawyers will thoroughly analyze the guidelines to try to get the lowest range possible for their client. Prosecutors often aim for a higher range. In the end, the judge takes the guidelines range into account along with other factors to try to impose a fair punishment that fits both the crime and the defendant.