Sentencing Guidelines-Consent for Video Sentencing

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Miguel Navarrete, Jr.

Case No.: 21-3230

Officials: Easterbrook, Kirsch, and Jackson-Akiwumi, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sentencing Guidelines-Consent for Video Sentencing

In this instance, the accused, Miguel Navarrete, a convicted felon, faced charges for unlawfully possessing a firearm. Navarrete underwent arraignment, entered a guilty plea, and received sentencing through video proceedings sanctioned by the CARES Act, a measure permitting such virtual hearings amid the COVID-19 pandemic. He provided consent for the video proceedings during the arraignment and guilty plea, with all requisite findings duly established. Despite receiving a sentence of 58 months’ which fell below the Sentencing Guidelines range, Navarrete appealed, contending that he should be resentenced because he did not physically appear in court and did not formally consent on the record to the video sentencing.

The Seventh Circuit ruled that the defendant’s argument did not meet the criteria for “plain error” reversal. The court reasoned that Navarrete had effectively exercised the substantial rights safeguarded by Rule 43(a), and the absence of formal on-the-record consent to a voluntarily chosen video appearance did not undermine the integrity of the justice system. Furthermore, the court dismissed the assertion that the failure to obtain explicit on-the-record consent for video sentencing constituted a structural error mandating automatic reversal. Instead, the court characterized it as a “discrete defect,” not impacting the overall course of the proceedings or necessarily casting doubt on the verdict’s reliability. Consequently, the court upheld the sentencing decision of the lower court.

Affirmed.

Decided 12/13/23

Full Text