Costa v. United States

Background

A man convicted of drug trafficking was sentenced to 60 years in prison and the trial court set his earliest parole eligibility at one-third of that sentence — 20 years. He argued that a federal law limited parole eligibility to ten years for very long sentences, but the appeals court rejected his challenge and approved the 20-year wait.

Reasoning

The key question is whether sentencing judges may set parole eligibility at one-third of a long sentence even when another part of the statute speaks of a ten-year ceiling. The Eleventh Circuit relied on a provision that lets judges designate a minimum time, up to one-third of the sentence. The Supreme Court declined to review that ruling, so the appeals court decision stands for this case.

Real world impact

Because federal courts disagree about how the two parts of the old statute work, the practical result is inconsistent rules across different regions. The statute was repealed in 1987 but still applies to crimes committed before that date, so people sentenced for pre-1987 offenses may be affected. The Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case leaves the split among the appeals courts unresolved.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justice O’Connor, dissented from the Court’s refusal to review and said the Court should grant review to resolve the conflict among the appeals courts.