WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider whether federal appeals judges can increase prison sentences of criminal defendants in the absence of a request from prosecutors.

The issue arose in the case of a Minneapolis man who challenged his prison term of nearly 37 years on drug and firearms charges in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The three-judge panel determined the federal judge in the case made an error that shortened the prison term of Michael Greenlaw by 15 years. Prosecutors pointed out the error at Greenlaw's sentencing, but did not appeal. The appeals judges said the public reputation of criminal trials and of sentencing could be undermined if an error were allowed to stand that resulted in less prison time.

The Supreme Court will now decide whether the appeals court had the authority to increase the sentence at its own discretion.

Separately, the court agreed to consider whether a judge can depart from federal sentencing guidelines without telling a defendant ahead of time why it was doing so. The justices will consider the issue in the case of Richard Irizarry, who was sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty in U.S. District Court in Mobile, Ala., to making threats against his ex-wife. Federal sentencing guidelines in the case called for 41 to 51 months in prison.

The cases are Greenlaw v. U.S., 07-330, and Irizarry v. U.S., 06-7517.

Court considers prison sentence cases - Yahoo! News