Post-Conviction Relief for Immigrants



 
 

§ 7.100 1. Right to Jury Determination of Facts Increasing Maximum Sentence

 
Skip to § 7.

For more text, click "Next Page>"

Due process requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury to determine the existence of, a sentencing factor that operates to increase the penalty above the statutory maximum sentence.[317]  This rule, however, only applies where the factual determination increases the maximum penalty beyond the statutory range authorized by the jury's verdict — it does not apply to factors that increase the statutory minimum sentence or otherwise increase the penalty imposed within the statutory maximum.  Apprendi error may invalidate the sentence as a whole if the maximum was raised by the improperly found factor.[318]


[317] Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); United States v. Buckland, 259 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2001) (declaring sentencing scheme of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(b)(1)(A) and (B) facially unconstitutional since it permits the judge to find a fact, the quantity of drugs, under the preponderance of the evidence standard, that increases the maximum penalty to which a defendant is exposed).

[318] United States v. Thomas, 355 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. January 26, 2004) (federal sentence in controlled substances case vacated and remanded, since guilty plea did not encompass the quantity allegation in the indictment, and the defendant neither admitted possessing more than 50 grams of cocaine base during his plea colloquy, nor knowingly waived his right to have a jury determine the question of quantity beyond a reasonable doubt).

 

TRANSLATE