High Court to Review Koon, Powell Sentences : Judiciary: LAPD officers are fighting appellate ruling that could lengthen their prison terms in Rodney King beating case.

The Supreme Court announced Wednesday it will consider arguments over the length of the prison terms for the two Los Angeles police officers convicted in the 1991 videotaped beating of motorist Rodney G. King.

Acting on appeals filed on behalf of former Sgt. Stacey C. Koon and ex-Officer Laurence M. Powell, the justices also refused to review their convictions for violating King’s constitutional rights. In particular, the court said it would not hear their claim that the two had been subjected to double jeopardy because they had been tried twice for the same crime--once by the state and once in federal court.

Under longstanding precedent, the Supreme Court has said that a state and the federal government are separate sovereign entities, and each can try the same defendant for essentially the same crime without violating the Constitution’s command that people not “be twice put in jeopardy . . . for the same offense.”

However, the justices announced that they would review a federal appeals court order that could, if upheld by the high court, keep Koon and Powell in prison for nearly seven years.

In August, 1993, U.S. District Judge John G. Davies sentenced the two officers to 2 1/2 years in prison, a far shorter term than prescribed by U.S. sentencing guidelines.

The guidelines, which took effect in 1988, are in a sentencing manual that demands that judges use a chart that lists the precise “offense level” of the crime and match it to a defendant’s criminal history. At the point that those two intersect, the judge is given a recommended sentence within a narrow range--far different from the broad scope of sentencing they had before the law.

In the case of Powell and Koon, the judge said the guidelines called for a term between 70 and 82 months, or a sentence in the range of six years.

But Davies cited several reasons for leniency. “Mr. King’s wrongful conduct contributed significantly” to the beating, which took place after a high-speed freeway chase, he said. The officers were “unusually susceptible to prison abuse,” he added, because the videotaped beating was shown repeatedly on television nationwide. And a “specter of unfairness” hangs over their conviction, he said, because the federal trial in Los Angeles came only after they were acquitted in a state trial in Simi Valley.

Davies then set a 30-month term for both officers, who were taken into custody in October, 1993. Because the federal rules say a term can be reduced 15% for good behavior, both officers will be free by December, their lawyers say.

But prosecutors contested the lenient sentence, and a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the judge had erred.

Speaking for the panel, Judge Betty B. Fletcher said the judge’s consideration of the “personal and professional consequences [to the officers] . . . are not appropriate grounds” to lower their sentences.

However, in an unusual move, nine of the 26 judges on the full appeals court--including Stephen Reinhardt, a prominent liberal, and Alex Kozinski, an equally prominent conservative--issued a strong dissenting statement. A majority of the full court is needed to reconsider the decision of a three-judge panel.

In one sense, it is no surprise that the high court agreed to hear the appeals. The lower courts are divided on the issue at the heart of the case: Can a trial judge put aside the federal sentencing guidelines and instead give a convicted criminal a lighter punishment?

But Wednesday’s action was a mild surprise because the court has tended to avoid intervening in high-profile criminal cases. In recent years, the court refused to consider significant legal issues when they were appealed in the cases of former White House aide Oliver L. North and former heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson.

Powell’s attorney, William J. Kopeny of Santa Ana, said he was greatly pleased by the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case. “It is ironic, though, that the first test of a judge’s discretion with the sentencing guidelines comes in a case involving police officers.” The guidelines have been favored by prosecutors and police as a way to ensure that judges will hand out stiff sentences.

The case probably will be scheduled for oral argument in January, with a ruling due by late June. Theodore B. Olson, a prominent Washington attorney who has represented former President Ronald Reagan, says he will argue on behalf of Koon.

If the high court rules for them, it will not change their situation because their sentence will be complete. However, if the court rules for the government, Davies will be obliged to sentence them to a longer term under the order handed down by the 9th Circuit panel.

The case was one of nine that the justices agreed to hear one day after meeting to sift through 1,566 appeals that had piled up over their summer recess. The other cases to be heard include:

* Must the government adjust the 1990 census because minorities were undercounted? Yes, said a federal appeals court, acting on a lawsuit filed by officials in New York, Los Angeles and other cities. But lawyers for Wisconsin, Oklahoma and the Clinton Administration appealed. If New York wins, California is likely to get another member of Congress, as well as millions in dollars in extra federal payments.

* Is the military death penalty unconstitutional because the President, not Congress, spelled out the conditions? Capital punishment was re-established for service personnel in a regulation issued by then-President Reagan, but attorneys for a Texas murderer say this violated the Constitution’s separation of powers.