RULING MAY REDUCE SENTENCES

About 60 Of 400 Cases Sent Back To Lower Courts Are From Texas

WASHINGTON -- Trigg-C got a break from the U.S. Supreme Court this
week. As a result he may be a few years younger when he is released
from prison.

Or maybe not.

Trigg-C is Mardio Waymon Trigg Jr., a 26-year-old serving time on
federal drug charges at the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth. He
pleaded guilty a year ago, and time was added to his sentence because
a firearm was seized during his arrest. He is ineligible for release
until June 2015.

Mr. Trigg's appeal of his 168-month sentence was among more than 400
vacated Monday and returned to lower courts because of the decision
two weeks ago to abandon mandatory federal sentencing guidelines.

Sam Pestinger, Mr. Trigg's attorney, said the decision won't change
his conviction but could mean Mr. Trigg will spend 33 fewer months in
prison should the federal judge who re-sentences him decides to
disregard the firearm.

The gun wasn't used, and the consideration Mr. Trigg received for
cooperating in the investigation was, in effect, trumped by the
discovery of the weapon. Mr. Pestinger thinks that in any new
sentencing, Mr. Trigg could receive the benefit of doubt.

"At least there's that possibility now," Mr. Pestinger said.

Two weeks ago, the high court ended mandatory federal sentencing
guidelines, ruling that they were an unconstitutional infringement on
the right to jury trial. The guidelines allowed the enhancement of
sentences -- often beyond the maximum and often based on evidence
gathered but never presented at trial.

Of more than 400 federal cases returned by the high court to lower
courts Monday, about 60 were from Texas, and about a dozen from the
Northern District in Dallas, where Mr. Trigg was sentenced. They
included counterfeiters, carjackers, bank robbers and immigration
violators. About half were from the Southern District based in
Houston. The rest of the cases were divided between the Western and
Eastern districts.

The 400 cases returned to the various circuits represent what could be
a long process of house-cleaning by the court, which first opened the
door for sweeping changes in sentencing practices four years ago.

In a case from New Jersey, the court decided that mandatory prison
sentences must be based on facts acknowledged by the defendant or
determined by a jury. The federal system itself was struck down two
weeks ago in a case called Booker vs. U.S.

The Booker decision was decided in two parts. The first decision
struck down the system that Congress established in 1987 to
standardize sentencing by federal judges. The second Booker decision
allows judges to use the guidelines literally as "guidelines."

It is the second Booker decision that is most confusing to prosecutors
and defense attorneys, said Rick Broughton, a law professor at Texas
Wesleyan University.

He says this week's wholesale action marks the first salvo of many
sentencing complaints that will have to be addressed by the courts,
and he thinks many of the cases will likely be seen again.

"I think even prosecutors are going to wait to see exactly what this
means," said Mr. Broughton. "I think both sides want to see how judges
interpret Booker. Once that happens, one side or the other is going to
be free to appeal."