Abbott/Gould decision released today
SCOTUS adopts majority reading of 924(c) mandatory minimum provisions in Abbott
The Supreme Court today handed down its opinion in Abbott v. US, No. 09–479
In one of three actions Monday on criminal law issues, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Congress did not intend in 1998 to spare individuals convicted of federal crimes from an extra sentence if they used a gun during a drug offense or a violent crime. That was the first decision of the Term in an argued case. The Court also added two new criminal cases to its docket for decision this Term, involving a new aspect of the “exclusionary rule” and a clarification of the proof needed under a federal murder law.
The Justices unaniminously (and unsurprisingly) adopted the government’s approach to the application of the mandatory minimum gun sentences set forth in 924(c).
Here is a key paragraph from the start of Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the Court:
We hold, in accord with the courts below, and in line with the majority of the Courts of Appeals, that a defendant is subject to a mandatory, consecutive sentence for a § 924(c) conviction, and is not spared from that sentence by virtue of receiving a higher mandatory minimum on a different count of conviction. Under the “except” clause as we comprehend it, a §924 (c) offender is not subject to stacked sentences for violating §924(c). If he possessed,brandished, and discharged a gun, the mandatory penalty would be 10 years, not 22. He is, however, subject to the highest mandatory minimum specified for his conduct in §924(c), unless another provision of law directed to conduct proscribed by §924(c) imposes an even greater mandatory minimum.
