Skip to main content

CLAIM OF ERROR

Holguin-Hernandez v. United States

Issues

Is a criminal defendant required to formally object after being sentenced in order to receive reasonableness review on appeal?

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether a formal objection at sentencing is necessary for criminal defendants to receive reasonableness review of the length of their sentence upon appeal. Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez argues that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51 (“Rule 51”) only requires defense counsel to argue prior to sentencing that a certain sentence would be unreasonable, thereby rendering a formal post-sentencing objection unnecessary. The United States agrees and also argues against the Fifth Circuit’s requirement of a formal post-sentence objection. The Court appointed an Amicus to brief the opposing side of the issue. Amicus argues that both Petitioner and Respondent misinterpret Rule 51, and that defendants must clearly state their objection and its grounds to preserve an argument for reasonableness review on appeal. The outcome of this case has implications for how clearly defendants need to articulate their objections to a court’s sentence and for the consistency of court procedure across criminal and civil cases.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant’s sentence.

In June 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (the “District Court”) convicted Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and sentenced to 24 months in prison, which would be followed by two years of supervised release.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to CLAIM OF ERROR