Amy Howe

Mar 23 2020

No new grants, but a rebuke for the 5th Circuit

Last Friday, the justices had their regularly scheduled private conference. According to the court’s Public Information Office, the meeting was a departure from their normal format: Following Center for Disease Control guidelines to combat the spread of the coronavirus, only Chief Justice John Roberts was actually in the justices’ conference room, with the rest of the justices joining the meeting by phone. Today the justices issued orders from that conference, but they did not add any new cases to their docket for next term.

The justices summarily vacated a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in the case of Charles Davis, who in 2016 pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and possessing drugs with the intent to distribute them. Davis was sentenced to 40 months in federal prison, with his sentence to start after time in prison for state offenses in 2015 for which he had not yet been sentenced.

Davis did not object to his sentence at the time, but when he appealed to the 5th Circuit he argued that his federal sentence should run concurrently with, rather than consecutively to, his state sentences because they were part of the “same course of conduct.” However, the 5th Circuit refused to consider his argument at all. Although an appellate court normally reviews an argument that a criminal defendant did not raise in the district court for “plain error,” the 5th Circuit ruled that Davis’ argument involved a question of fact. And in the 5th Circuit, questions of fact that the district court could have resolved if the defendant had objected cannot be plain error.

Davis asked the Supreme Court to review the 5th Circuit’s decision, and today the justices threw out the ruling, with a discussion of the legal rule that was so brief that it amounted to an implied rebuke of the court of appeals. The text of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) and the Supreme Court’s own cases, the justices explained in an unsigned three-page decision, do not “immunize factual errors from plain-error review.” “Simply put,” the court continued, “there is no legal basis for the Fifth Circuit’s practice of declining to review certain unpreserved factual arguments for plain error.” While the justices did not weigh in on whether Davis had met the plain-error standard, they sent the case back to the lower courts for new proceedings.

The justices denied a petition filed by Edwin Avery, who had asked them to decide whether the ban on second or successive filings of habeas petitions applies to federal prisoners seeking collateral review. Noting that that the federal government now disagrees with the six courts of appeals that “had previously decided the issue in the Government’s favor,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated that he would grant review in a future case to resolve the division among the courts of appeals on this question.

The justices are scheduled to meet (perhaps remotely) again on Friday for another private conference. Orders from that conference are likely on Monday, March 30, at 9:30 a.m.

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies