Leymon 5
consensus is that guidelines fit into two loosely defined legal categories. The first, labeled as
presumptive, are designed to be strict in their implementation. Judges must follow the formula and in
most cases cannot deviate from the matrix. Some states with this type of system do allow deviations, but
only on rare occasions and not without a written justification of the judge’s reasons for doing so. The
second format, referred to as voluntary, treats guidelines as formal recommendations to the judge, but
does not mandate that he or she follow them. The important distinction between the two classifications of
guidelines is the legal mechanisms at work in each state. States with determinate sentencing have
“legally binding” sentencing matrixes that are enforced by appellate review, allowing both the
prosecution and defense to appeal a sentence that does not follow the guidelines. In states with the
voluntary system, there is no appellate review, while judges may be required to give a written justification
for deviations from the proscribed sentence; they are not legally obligated to follow them. This
classification of presumptive and voluntary sentencing guidelines is unrelated to how the guidelines were
created (by legislative statute, the imitative process, or sentencing commissions) or whether an active
commission monitors them. It is important to note that while it is relatively simple to classify guidelines
by their binding legal status, considerable variation exists in the design and implementation of sentencing
reforms across states.
Preceding sentencing guidelines, determinate sentencing was the first attempt by state legislators to
limit or eliminate the “indeterminateness” of sentencing. In contrast to sentencing guidelines, determinate
sentencing focuses less attention to the mechanisms of sentencing and focuses more attention on time of
release. It stipulates that sentences must be for a fixed amount of time, but do not use the sentencing
matrixes devised under sentencing guidelines. In general determinate sentencing is used to refer to a
system without discretionary parole release. Just as with sentencing guidelines, determinate sentencing
also varies from state to state, but the important distinction between sentencing guidelines and
determinate sentencing is the absence of the sentencing rubric that cross tabulates crime severity by prior
convictions. Determinate sentencing on the other hand simply allows the judge to sentence the offender
Convention