DRUG-DEALING CASES SENT TO STATE FOR RESENTENCING

CONCORD - Two New Hampshire drug dealing cases are among the 400 the U.S.
Supreme Court has sent back to lower courts for resentencing after it found
the federal sentencing guidelines unconstitutional earlier this month.

The New Hampshire cases are those of Robert Champagne and James Coyne, who
were sentenced to more than 12 years in prison in separate cases.

U.S. District County Clerk James Starr said he expects appeals may be filed
by other federal inmates sentenced in U.S. District Court in Concord.

Jonathan Saxe, the state's assistant federal public defender, said he
expected lots of inmates to file appeals, but did not think many would get
time shaved off their sentences.

"Will the floodgates open? I don't think so," he said. "There are many
issues that will have to be litigated."

While courts will have to review challenged sentences in some cases, the
Supreme Court did not make its ruling retroactive, so it only applies to
people whose appeals were still pending or incomplete. And the guidelines,
while no longer mandatory, can still be used by judges for guidance.

Saxe also said that defendants who failed to argue their sentences were
unfair at the sentencing hearing or in their appeals may not be able to
raise the issue now.

"Going backward, if you were sentenced under the guidelines and . . . if
you didn't raise the issue, you're out of luck," he said.

Inmates involved in the 400 cases cited by the high court Monday argued
that judges had boosted their sentences improperly based on factors that
had not come before the jury during trial.

The Supreme Court ruled Jan. 12 that the federal guidelines violated a
defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial because the 18-year-old
guidelines required judges, instead of juries, to make factual decisions
that affect prison time, such as the quantity of drugs involved in a bust
or the amount of money involved in fraud.

Under the ruling, the guidelines are no longer mandatory but advisory. As a
result, federal judges are free to sentence convicted criminals as they see
fit, but they may be subject to reversal if appeals courts find them
"unreasonable."