Betterman v. Montana

Background

Brandon Betterman pleaded guilty to a bail-jumping charge after failing to appear on domestic assault allegations and then spent over 14 months jailed awaiting sentence. The Montana Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment’s speedy trial guarantee does not apply to delay between conviction and sentencing. The State’s court procedures, a presentence report, and other routine steps contributed to the delay.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the Sixth Amendment’s speedy trial right protects defendants at the sentencing phase. It held the right applies from arrest or formal charge through trial but ends at conviction, because the Clause is designed to protect the presumptively innocent. The majority explained that the Clause’s historical meaning, statutes like the Speedy Trial Act, and prior cases focus on preconviction safeguards, while sentencing normally involves procedures (like presentence reports) that justify some delay. Because Betterman raised only a Sixth Amendment claim and not a due process challenge, the Court did not decide whether excessive sentencing delay might violate due process.

Real world impact

After this decision, defendants cannot rely on the Sixth Amendment to challenge postconviction sentencing delays; relief must come from statutes, court rules, credit for time served, or a properly preserved due process claim. Many jurisdictions already have rules or timelines for sentencing and presentence reports, so ordinary procedural delays will often be governed by those existing mechanisms. The ruling leaves open whether and when due process might require a prompt sentencing hearing.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Sotomayor concurred in the judgment and stressed the Due Process Clause remains available and that the flexible Barker factors could guide future due process challenges to sentencing delay.