The sentence may be rendered invalid by judicial error in excluding relevant evidence from consideration at sentence, which must be based on complete information.  “In order for the sentencing judge to make an intelligent decision on an appropriate disposition of a defendant at the time of sentencing, the judge should be provided all the relevant information about the offense and the offender.”[397]

 

The Supreme Court has stated:

 

Highly relevant — if not essential — to [the sentencing judge’s] selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant’s life and characteristics.  And modern concepts individualizing punishment have made it all the more necessary that a sentencing judge not be denied an opportunity to obtain pertinent information . . . .[398]

 

Federal statute and sentencing guidelines impose similar standards.[399]

            Therefore, a sentence should be vacated where the court refuses to consider information relevant to the imposition of sentence.

 

[397] Cafone, Vacation of Illegal Sentences, Chap. 46, in Criminal Defense Techniques § 46.03 (2003).

[398] Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 250, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1948).

[399] 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (“No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court . . . may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.4, comment (“The recodification of this 1970 statute . . . makes it clear that Congress intended no limitation would be placed on the information that a court may consider in imposing an appropriate sentence under the [Guidelines].”).

GROUNDS - EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE - FAILURE TO DISCLOSE
Banks v. Dretke, ___ U.S. ___ (February 24, 2004) (concealment of significant exculpatory or impeachment material in possession of the police or prosecutor is basis for grant of habeas).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-8286.html

Ninth Circuit

POST CONVICTION RELIEF - GROUNDS - FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE - PROBATION FILES
United States v. Alvarez, __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. February 25, 2004) (where district court fails to conduct in camera review of probation files of significant witnesses pursuant to timely Brady request, conviction will be vacated and case remanded to conduct review; if files found to contain material information bearing on credibility of witnesses, court shall release such and order new trial).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0110686p.pdf

Other

POST CON RELIEF - SENTENCE - GROUNDS - DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO MEANINGFUL CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATING EVIDENCE
Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman, ___ U.S. ___ (2007) (habeas denial reversed where there was a reasonable likelihood that a state trial court's instructions prevented jurors from giving meaningful consideration to constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence); Brewer v. Quarterman, ___ U.S. ___ (2007) (same)..