In other rulings: Judges given sentencing leeway

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that judges do not have to notify defendants and prosecutors when contemplating a prison term outside the range called for in federal sentencing guidelines.

The 5-4 decision dealt with the fact that the guidelines are no longer mandatory, giving judges more flexibility in sentencing.

The concerns that prompted notification in a world of mandatory sentencing guidelines no longer provide a basis for extending the notification rule, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the majority opinion.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote "fairness justifies notice."

The decision came in the case of Richard Irizarry, who threatened to kill his ex-wife in Alabama and her relatives.

Irizarry was convicted and sentenced to 60 months in prison, nine months more than the guidelines' maximum and the maximum allowed under the law. The judge said the extra prison time was based on Irizarry representing a future danger to his ex-wife and family.

In 2002, the federal rules of criminal procedure were amended to require advance notice if a court intended to deviate from the then-mandatory sentencing guidelines.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the guidelines are advisory, declaring that making them mandatory violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

The judge in Irizarry's case said that the advisory status of the guidelines means courts are no longer required to give defendants and prosecutors advance notice. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta agreed with the judge.

The case is Irizarry v. U.S., 06-7517.