The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit in Molina-Martinez v. United States, No. 14-8913, maintaining the approach taken by the Third Circuit in reviewing Guidelines error. In an opinion by Kennedy (joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan), the Court held: "courts reviewing sentencing errors cannot apply a categorical rule requiring additional evidence in cases, like this one, where the district court applied an incorrect range but nevertheless sentenced the defendant within the correct range.... [A] defendant can rely on the application of an incorrect Guidelines range to show an effect on his substantial rights." The Court reasoned: "From the centrality of the Guidelines in the sentencing process it must follow that, when a defendant shows that the district court used an incorrect range, he should not be barred from relief on appeal simply because there is no other evidence that the sentencing outcome would have been different had the correct range been used. In most cases a defendant who has shown that the district court mistakenly deemed applicable an incorrect, higher Guidelines range has demonstrated a reasonable probability of a different outcome." In other words: "When a defendant is sentenced under an incorrect Guidelines range -- whether or not the defendant's ultimate sentence falls within the correct range -- the error itself can, and most often will, be sufficient to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the error."
Alito, concurring (joined by Thomas), agreed with the result and that the Fifth Circuit's "rigid approach" is incorrect, but took issue with the majority's "speculat[ion]" about "how often the reasonable probability test will be satisfied in future cases." He explained: "The Court's predictions... are predicated on the view that sentencing judges will continue to rely very heavily on the Guidelines in the future, but that prediction may not turn out to be accurate."
Thanks to Laura Mate, Sentencing Resource Counsel, for this summary.