alleyne
argued
january
decided
june
petitioner
alleyne
charged
relevant
using
carrying
firearm
relation
crime
violence
carries
mandatory
minimum
sentence
increases
minimum
firearm
brandished
ii
minimum
firearm
discharged
iii
convicting
alleyne
jury
form
indicated
sed
carried
firearm
relation
crime
violence
firearm
randished
presentence
report
recommended
sentence
count
alleyne
objected
arguing
verdict
form
clearly
indicated
jury
find
brandishing
beyond
reasonable
doubt
raising
mandatory
minimum
sentence
based
sentencing
judge
finding
brandishing
violate
sixth
amendment
right
jury
trial
district
overruled
objection
relying
holding
harris
judicial
factfinding
increases
mandatory
minimum
sentence
crime
permissible
sixth
amendment
fourth
circuit
affirmed
agreeing
alleyne
objection
foreclosed
harris
held
judgment
vacated
case
remanded
pp
fed
appx
vacated
remanded
justice
thomas
delivered
opinion
respect
parts
iv
concluding
mandatory
minimum
sentences
increase
penalty
crime
fact
increases
mandatory
minimum
element
must
submitted
jury
accordingly
harris
overruled
pp
apprendi
new
jersey
concluded
increase
prescribed
range
penalties
criminal
defendant
elements
crime
thus
sixth
amendment
provides
defendants
right
jury
find
facts
beyond
reasonable
doubt
apprendi
principle
applies
equal
force
facts
increasing
mandatory
minimum
fact
triggering
mandatory
minimum
alters
prescribed
range
sentences
criminal
defendant
exposed
legally
prescribed
range
penalty
affixed
crime
follows
fact
increasing
either
end
range
produces
new
penalty
constitutes
ingredient
offense
impossible
dissociate
floor
sentencing
range
penalty
affixed
crime
fact
criminal
statutes
long
specified
floor
ceiling
sentence
ranges
evidence
define
legally
prescribed
penalty
also
impossible
dispute
facts
increasing
legally
prescribed
floor
aggravate
punishment
heightening
loss
liberty
associated
crime
defining
facts
increase
mandatory
minimum
part
substantive
offense
enables
defendant
predict
legally
applicable
penalty
face
indictment
see
preserves
jury
historic
role
intermediary
state
criminal
defendants
see
gaudin
reaching
contrary
conclusion
harris
relied
fact
minimum
sentence
imposed
without
judicial
finding
brandishing
jury
finding
authorized
sentence
five
years
life
fact
beside
point
essential
sixth
amendment
inquiry
whether
fact
element
crime
fact
brandishing
aggravates
legally
prescribed
range
allowable
sentences
constitutes
element
separate
aggravated
offense
must
found
jury
regardless
sentence
defendant
might
received
different
range
applicable
basis
principle
logic
distinguish
facts
raise
maximum
increase
minimum
pp
ruling
mean
fact
influences
judicial
discretion
must
found
jury
long
recognized
broad
sentencing
discretion
informed
judicial
factfinding
violate
sixth
amendment
see
dillon
pp
sentencing
range
supported
jury
verdict
five
years
imprisonment
life
judge
rather
jury
found
brandishing
increased
penalty
alleyne
subjected
violated
sixth
amendment
rights
pp
justice
thomas
joined
justice
ginsburg
justice
sotomayor
justice
kagan
concluded
parts
ii
sixth
amendment
right
trial
impartial
jury
conjunction
due
process
clause
requires
element
crime
proved
jury
beyond
reasonable
doubt
gaudin
several
divided
opinions
addressed
constitutional
status
sentencing
factor
mcmillan
pennsylvania
held
facts
found
increase
mandatory
minimum
sentence
sentencing
factors
judge
find
preponderance
evidence
apprendi
however
declined
extend
mcmillan
new
jersey
statute
increased
maximum
term
imprisonment
trial
judge
found
crime
committed
racial
bias
finding
fact
increased
prescribed
statutory
maximum
sentence
must
element
offense
found
jury
two
years
later
harris
declined
apply
apprendi
facts
increased
mandatory
minimum
sentence
maximum
sentence
pp
touchstone
determining
whether
fact
must
found
jury
beyond
reasonable
doubt
whether
fact
constitutes
element
charged
offense
apprendi
definition
necessarily
includes
facts
increase
ceiling
also
increase
floor
common
law
relationship
crime
punishment
clear
sentence
prescribed
offense
leaving
judges
little
sentencing
discretion
fact
law
essential
penalty
element
offense
practice
including
indictment
submitting
jury
every
fact
basis
imposing
increasing
punishment
understanding
reflected
contemporaneous
decisions
treatises
pp
justice
breyer
agreeing
harris
overruled
concluded
continues
disagree
apprendi
new
jersey
fails
recognize
law
traditional
distinction
elements
crime
sentencing
facts
finds
highly
anomalous
read
apprendi
insisting
juries
find
sentencing
facts
permit
judge
impose
higher
sentence
insisting
juries
find
sentencing
facts
require
judge
impose
higher
sentence
overruling
harris
applying
apprendi
basic
rule
mandatory
minimum
sentences
erase
anomaly
maximum
sentence
issue
apprendi
means
judge
wishes
impose
higher
sentence
unless
jury
finds
requisite
statutory
factual
predicate
mandatory
minimum
sentence
issue
apprendi
mean
government
force
judge
wish
impose
higher
sentence
unless
jury
finds
requisite
statutory
factual
predicate
pp
thomas
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
respect
parts
iv
ginsburg
breyer
sotomayor
kagan
joined
opinion
respect
parts
ii
ginsburg
sotomayor
kagan
joined
sotomayor
filed
concurring
opinion
ginsburg
kagan
joined
breyer
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
roberts
filed
dissenting
opinion
scalia
kennedy
joined
alito
filed
dissenting
opinion
opinion
thomas
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
allen
ryan
alleyne
petitioner
writ
certiorari
appeals
fourth
circuit
june
justice
thomas
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
respect
parts
iv
opinion
respect
parts
ii
justice
ginsburg
justice
sotomayor
justice
kagan
join
harris
held
judicial
factfinding
increases
mandatory
minimum
sentence
crime
permissible
sixth
amendment
granted
certiorari
consider
whether
decision
overruled
harris
drew
distinction
facts
increase
statutory
maximum
facts
increase
mandatory
minimum
conclude
distinction
inconsistent
decision
apprendi
new
jersey
original
meaning
sixth
amendment
fact
law
increases
penalty
crime
element
must
submitted
jury
found
beyond
reasonable
doubt
see
mandatory
minimum
sentences
increase
penalty
crime
follows
fact
increases
mandatory
minimum
element
must
submitted
jury
accordingly
harris
overruled
petitioner
allen
ryan
alleyne
accomplice
devised
plan
rob
store
manager
drove
store
daily
deposits
local
bank
feigning
car
trouble
tricked
manager
stop
alleyne
accomplice
approached
manager
gun
demanded
store
deposits
manager
surrendered
alleyne
later
charged
multiple
federal
offenses
including
robbery
affecting
interstate
commerce
using
carrying
firearm
relation
crime
violence
section
provides
relevant
part
anyone
uses
carries
firearm
relation
crime
violence
shall
sentenced
term
imprisonment
less
years
ii
firearm
brandished
sentenced
term
imprisonment
less
years
iii
firearm
discharged
sentenced
term
imprisonment
less
years
jury
convicted
alleyne
jury
indicated
verdict
form
alleyne
sed
carried
firearm
relation
crime
violence
indicate
finding
firearm
randished
app
presentence
report
recommended
sentence
count
reflected
mandatory
minimum
sentence
cases
firearm
brandished
ii
alleyne
objected
recommendation
argued
clear
verdict
form
jury
find
brandishing
beyond
reasonable
doubt
subject
minimum
us
ing
carr
ying
firearm
alleyne
contended
raising
mandatory
minimum
sentence
based
sentencing
judge
finding
brandished
firearm
violate
sixth
amendment
right
jury
trial
district
overruled
alleyne
objection
explained
harris
brandishing
sentencing
factor
find
preponderance
evidence
without
running
afoul
constitution
found
evidence
supported
finding
brandishing
sentenced
alleyne
seven
years
imprisonment
count
appeals
affirmed
likewise
noting
alleyne
objection
foreclosed
harris
fed
appx
per
curiam
ii
sixth
amendment
provides
accused
crime
right
trial
impartial
jury
right
conjunction
due
process
clause
requires
element
crime
proved
jury
beyond
reasonable
doubt
gaudin
winship
substance
scope
right
depend
upon
proper
designation
facts
elements
crime
question
define
crime
thus
determine
facts
must
submitted
jury
generated
number
divided
opinions
principal
source
disagreement
constitutional
status
special
sort
fact
known
sentencing
factor
term
first
used
mcmillan
pennsylvania
refer
facts
found
jury
still
increase
defendant
punishment
following
mcmillan
introduction
term
made
number
efforts
delimit
boundaries
mcmillan
initially
invoked
distinction
elements
sentencing
factors
reject
constitutional
challenge
pennsylvania
mandatory
minimum
sentencing
act
cons
stat
law
provided
anyone
convicted
certain
felonies
subject
mandatory
minimum
sentence
judge
found
preponderance
evidence
person
possessed
course
committing
specified
crimes
acknowledged
constitutional
limits
state
ability
defin
crimes
prescrib
penalties
found
commonwealth
permissibly
defined
visible
possession
sentencing
factor
rather
element
view
allowed
judge
rather
jury
find
fact
preponderance
evidence
without
violating
constitution
mcmillan
address
whether
legislatures
freedom
define
facts
sentencing
factors
extended
findings
increased
maximum
term
imprisonment
offense
foreshadowed
answer
question
jones
resolve
issue
apprendi
identified
concrete
limit
types
facts
legislatures
may
designate
sentencing
factors
apprendi
defendant
sentenced
years
imprisonment
new
jersey
statute
increased
maximum
term
imprisonment
years
years
trial
judge
found
defendant
committed
crime
racial
bias
defending
sentencing
scheme
state
new
jersey
argued
mcmillan
legislature
define
racial
bias
sentencing
factor
found
judge
declined
extend
mcmillan
far
explained
principled
basis
treating
fact
increasing
maximum
term
imprisonment
differently
facts
constituting
base
offense
historic
link
crime
punishment
instead
led
us
conclude
fact
increased
prescribed
statutory
maximum
sentence
must
element
offense
found
jury
thus
found
apprendi
sentence
unconstitutionally
enhanced
judge
finding
racial
bias
preponderance
evidence
apprendi
concerned
judicial
finding
increased
statutory
maximum
logic
apprendi
prompted
questions
continuing
vitality
validity
mcmillan
holding
facts
found
increase
mandatory
minimum
sentence
sentencing
factors
elements
crime
responded
two
years
later
harris
considered
statutory
provision
question
us
today
harris
defendant
charged
carrying
firearm
course
committing
drug
trafficking
crime
mandatory
minimum
sentence
based
jury
verdict
alone
five
years
district
imposed
mandatory
minimum
sentence
based
finding
preponderance
evidence
defendant
also
brandished
firearm
case
harris
challenged
sentence
ground
mandatory
minimum
sentence
unconstitutional
apprendi
even
though
judge
finding
alter
maximum
sentence
exposed
harris
supra
declined
apply
apprendi
facts
increased
mandatory
minimum
sentence
maximum
sentence
view
judicial
factfinding
increased
mandatory
minimum
implicate
sixth
amendment
jury
verdict
authorized
judge
impose
minimum
without
finding
view
factual
basis
increasing
minimum
sentence
defendant
punishment
plurality
opinion
instead
merely
limited
judge
choices
within
authorized
range
drew
distinction
facts
increasing
defendant
minimum
sentence
facts
extending
sentence
beyond
statutory
maximum
limited
apprendi
holding
instances
factual
finding
increases
statutory
maximum
sentence
iii
alleyne
contends
harris
wrongly
decided
reconciled
reasoning
apprendi
agree
touchstone
determining
whether
fact
must
found
jury
beyond
reasonable
doubt
whether
fact
constitutes
element
ingredient
charged
offense
slip
apprendi
supra
archbold
pleading
evidence
criminal
cases
ed
hereinafter
archbold
apprendi
held
fact
definition
element
offense
must
submitted
jury
increases
punishment
otherwise
legally
prescribed
harris
declined
extend
principle
facts
increasing
mandatory
minimum
sentences
apprendi
definition
elements
necessarily
includes
facts
increase
ceiling
also
increase
floor
kinds
facts
alter
prescribed
range
sentences
defendant
exposed
manner
aggravates
punishment
harris
supra
thomas
dissenting
facts
increase
mandatory
minimum
sentence
therefore
elements
must
submitted
jury
found
beyond
reasonable
doubt
common
law
relationship
crime
punishment
clear
discussed
apprendi
substantive
criminal
law
tended
meaning
prescribed
particular
sentence
offense
langbein
english
criminal
trial
jury
eve
french
revolution
trial
jury
england
france
germany
schioppa
ed
quoted
apprendi
supra
system
left
judges
little
sentencing
discretion
facts
offense
determined
jury
judge
meant
simply
impose
prescribed
sentence
langbein
supra
see
also
blackstone
commentaries
laws
england
judgment
though
pronounced
awarded
judges
determination
sentence
determination
sentence
law
emphasis
deleted
recognized
true
many
instances
early
country
grayson
see
commonwealth
smith
mass
describing
state
law
specified
punishment
larceny
damages
three
times
value
stolen
goods
early
american
statutes
provided
ranges
permissible
sentences
stith
cabranes
fear
judging
sentencing
guidelines
federal
courts
ranges
linked
particular
facts
constituting
elements
crime
lacy
state
discussing
arson
statute
provided
sentence
years
house
occupied
time
offense
sentence
ga
penal
code
robbery
open
force
violence
punishable
years
imprisonment
obbery
intimidation
without
using
force
violence
punishable
years
imprisonment
linkage
facts
particular
sentence
ranges
defined
minimum
maximum
reflects
intimate
connection
crime
punishment
consistent
connection
crime
punishment
various
treatises
defined
crime
consisting
every
fact
law
essential
punishment
sought
inflicted
bishop
criminal
procedure
ed
hereinafter
bishop
whole
wrong
law
affixes
punishment
see
also
bishop
new
criminal
procedure
ed
defining
crime
wrongful
aggregation
elements
punishment
proceeds
archbold
defining
crime
include
fact
annexes
higher
degree
punishment
numerous
high
courts
agreed
formulation
accurately
captured
understanding
facts
elements
crime
apprendi
thomas
concurring
collecting
cases
fact
law
essential
penalty
element
offense
widely
recognized
principles
followed
practice
including
indictment
submitting
jury
every
fact
basis
imposing
increasing
punishment
exhaustive
history
need
recounted
see
thomas
concurring
detailing
practices
american
courts
onward
particularly
salient
examples
illustrate
point
hope
commonwealth
mass
defendant
indicted
convicted
larceny
larceny
statute
established
two
levels
sentencing
based
whether
value
stolen
property
exceeded
punishment
varied
value
state
high
found
value
element
offense
statutes
remembered
prescribe
punishment
larceny
reference
value
property
stolen
reason
well
conformity
long
established
practice
opinion
value
property
alleged
stolen
must
set
forth
indictment
numerous
contemporaneous
decisions
reflect
understanding
see
ritchey
state
blackf
ind
holding
indictment
arson
must
allege
value
property
destroyed
statute
set
punishment
based
value
fisher
cas
cc
ohio
mclean
carrier
mail
subject
higher
penalty
steals
letter
mail
contains
article
value
offense
committed
indictment
must
allege
letter
contained
article
value
aggravates
offense
incurs
higher
penalty
number
contemporaneous
treatises
similarly
took
view
fact
increased
punishment
must
charged
indictment
one
commentator
explained
statute
annexes
higher
degree
punishment
felony
committed
particular
circumstances
indictment
offence
order
bring
defendant
within
higher
degree
punishment
must
expressly
charge
committed
circumstances
must
state
circumstances
certainty
precision
hale
pleas
crown
archbold
ed
another
explained
indictment
must
contain
allegation
every
fact
legally
essential
punishment
inflicted
bishop
rule
enabled
defendant
determine
species
offence
charged
order
may
prepare
defence
accordingly
may
doubt
judgment
given
defendant
convicted
archbold
emphasis
added
noted
apprendi
defendant
ability
predict
certainty
judgment
face
felony
indictment
flowed
invariable
linkage
punishment
crime
consistent
early
american
practice
apprendi
concluded
facts
increase
prescribed
range
penalties
criminal
defendant
exposed
elements
crime
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
acts
expose
defendant
punishment
greater
otherwise
legally
prescribed
definition
separate
legal
offense
held
sixth
amendment
provides
defendants
right
jury
find
facts
beyond
reasonable
doubt
harris
limited
apprendi
facts
increasing
statutory
maximum
principle
applied
apprendi
applies
equal
force
facts
increasing
mandatory
minimum
indisputable
fact
triggering
mandatory
minimum
alters
prescribed
range
sentences
criminal
defendant
exposed
apprendi
supra
harris
thomas
dissenting
finding
brandishing
penalty
five
years
life
prison
finding
brandishing
penalty
becomes
seven
years
life
maximum
life
marks
outer
boundary
range
seven
years
marks
floor
legally
prescribed
range
penalty
affixed
crime
infra
page
follows
fact
increasing
either
end
range
produces
new
penalty
constitutes
ingredient
offense
apprendi
supra
thomas
concurring
see
also
bishop
statute
prescribes
particular
punishment
inflicted
commit
special
circumstances
mentions
particular
aggravations
special
circumstances
must
specified
indictment
emphasis
added
wharton
criminal
law
rev
ed
similar
impossible
dissociate
floor
sentencing
range
penalty
affixed
crime
see
harris
supra
breyer
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
facts
increasing
minimum
facts
increasing
maximum
distinguished
terms
logic
indeed
criminal
statutes
long
specified
floor
ceiling
sentence
ranges
evidence
define
legally
prescribed
penalty
see
supra
penal
code
punishment
robbery
years
imprisonment
robbery
years
code
ch
ed
arson
committed
night
punishable
years
arson
committed
day
years
historical
practice
allowed
violated
law
know
ex
ante
contours
penalty
legislature
affixed
crime
comports
obvious
truth
floor
mandatory
range
relevant
wrongdoers
ceiling
fact
increases
sentencing
floor
thus
forms
essential
ingredient
offense
moreover
impossible
dispute
facts
increasing
legally
prescribed
floor
aggravate
punishment
harris
supra
thomas
dissenting
thomas
concurring
judgment
slip
elevating
sentencing
range
heightens
loss
liberty
associated
crime
defendant
expected
punishment
increased
result
narrowed
range
prosecution
empowered
invoking
mandatory
minimum
require
judge
impose
higher
punishment
might
wish
apprendi
supra
thomas
concurring
else
congress
link
increased
mandatory
minimum
particular
aggravating
fact
heighten
consequences
behavior
see
mcmillan
twice
noting
mandatory
minimum
criminal
defendant
harris
supra
thomas
dissenting
reality
demonstrates
core
crime
fact
triggering
mandatory
minimum
sentence
together
constitute
new
aggravated
crime
element
must
submitted
defining
facts
increase
mandatory
statutory
minimum
part
substantive
offense
enables
defendant
predict
legally
applicable
penalty
face
indictment
see
apprendi
also
preserves
historic
role
jury
intermediary
state
criminal
defendants
see
gaudin
right
designed
guard
spirit
oppression
tyranny
part
rulers
early
times
insisted
ancestors
parent
country
great
bulwark
civil
political
quoting
story
commentaries
constitution
pp
ed
williams
florida
essential
feature
jury
obviously
lies
interposition
accused
accuser
duncan
louisiana
right
jury
trial
granted
criminal
defendants
order
prevent
oppression
government
adopting
contrary
conclusion
harris
relied
fact
minimum
sentence
imposed
without
judicial
finding
brandishing
jury
finding
already
authorized
sentence
five
years
life
dissent
repeats
argument
today
see
post
opinion
roberts
jury
verdict
authorized
judge
impose
precise
sentence
imposed
precise
factual
reason
imposed
undoubtedly
true
fact
beside
noted
essential
sixth
amendment
inquiry
whether
fact
element
crime
finding
fact
alters
legally
prescribed
punishment
aggravate
fact
necessarily
forms
constituent
part
new
offense
must
submitted
jury
answer
say
defendant
received
sentence
without
fact
obvious
example
defendant
convicted
sentenced
assault
jury
finds
facts
larceny
even
punishments
prescribed
crime
identical
one
reason
crime
different
elements
defendant
convicted
jury
found
element
crime
conviction
similarly
fact
brandishing
aggravates
legally
prescribed
range
allowable
sentences
constitutes
element
separate
aggravated
offense
must
found
jury
regardless
sentence
defendant
might
received
different
range
applicable
indeed
judge
find
fact
increased
statutory
maximum
sentence
finding
violate
sixth
amendment
even
defendant
ultimately
received
sentence
falling
within
original
sentencing
range
range
applicable
without
aggravating
fact
cf
hobbs
state
tex
reversing
conviction
defendant
indicted
crime
punishable
years
sentenced
years
trial
improperly
instructed
jury
sentence
defendant
years
found
particular
aggravating
fact
state
callahan
la
finding
ex
post
facto
violation
newly
enacted
law
increased
range
punishment
even
though
defendant
sentenced
within
range
established
prior
law
essential
point
aggravating
fact
produced
higher
range
turn
conclusively
indicates
fact
element
distinct
aggravated
crime
must
therefore
submitted
jury
found
beyond
reasonable
doubt
basis
principle
logic
distinguish
facts
raise
maximum
increase
minimum
harris
inconsistent
accordingly
holding
facts
increase
mandatory
minimum
sentences
must
submitted
jury
take
care
note
holding
entail
ruling
today
mean
fact
influences
judicial
discretion
must
found
jury
long
recognized
broad
sentencing
discretion
informed
judicial
factfinding
violate
sixth
amendment
see
dillon
slip
ithin
established
limits
exercise
sentencing
discretion
contravene
sixth
amendment
even
informed
facts
emphasis
deleted
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
apprendi
othing
history
suggests
impermissible
judges
exercise
discretion
taking
consideration
various
factors
relating
offense
offender
imposing
judgment
within
range
prescribed
statute
position
firm
historical
roots
well
bishop
explained
ithin
limits
discretion
punishment
law
may
allowed
judge
pronounces
sentence
may
suffer
discretion
influenced
matter
shown
aggravation
mitigation
covered
allegations
indictment
bishop
stablishing
punishment
available
law
setting
specific
punishment
within
bounds
law
prescribed
two
different
things
apprendi
supra
thomas
concurring
decision
today
wholly
consistent
broad
discretion
judges
select
sentence
within
range
authorized
law
iv
sentencing
range
supported
jury
verdict
five
years
imprisonment
life
district
imposed
mandatory
minimum
sentence
based
finding
preponderance
evidence
firearm
brandished
finding
brandishing
increased
penalty
defendant
subjected
element
found
jury
beyond
reasonable
doubt
judge
rather
jury
found
brandishing
thus
violating
petitioner
sixth
amendment
rights
accordingly
vacate
sixth
circuit
judgment
respect
alleyne
sentence
conviction
remand
case
resentencing
consistent
jury
verdict
ordered
sotomayor
concurring
allen
ryan
alleyne
petitioner
writ
certiorari
appeals
fourth
circuit
june
justice
sotomayor
justice
ginsburg
justice
kagan
join
concurring
join
opinion
persuasively
explains
harris
mcmillan
pennsylvania
wrongly
decided
reasoning
decision
apprendi
new
jersey
original
meaning
sixth
amendment
facts
increase
statutory
minimum
sentence
less
facts
increase
statutory
maximum
sentence
elements
offense
must
found
jury
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
ante
course
doctrine
stare
decisis
establishing
decision
wrong
without
justify
overruling
stare
decisis
inexorable
command
hohn
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
basic
principle
within
judicial
branch
entrusted
sensitive
difficult
task
fashioning
preserving
jurisprudential
system
based
upon
arbitrary
discretion
patterson
mclean
credit
union
quoting
federalist
lodge
ed
hamilton
generally
adhere
prior
decisions
even
question
soundness
promotes
evenhanded
predictable
consistent
development
legal
principles
fosters
reliance
judicial
decisions
contributes
actual
perceived
integrity
judicial
process
payne
tennessee
protect
important
values
require
special
justification
departing
precedent
dickerson
special
justification
present
initial
matter
procedural
rules
issue
govern
primary
conduct
implicate
reliance
interests
private
parties
force
stare
decisis
reduced
see
gaudin
payne
reliance
interest
federal
government
state
governments
might
particularly
minimal
prosecutors
perfectly
able
charge
facts
upon
mandatory
minimum
sentence
based
indictment
prove
jury
harris
thomas
dissenting
indeed
even
harris
place
prosecutors
already
sometimes
charge
facts
seek
prove
jury
see
brief
national
association
criminal
defense
lawyers
et
al
amici
curiae
precisely
happened
verdict
form
allowed
jury
find
whether
petitioner
brandished
firearm
yet
jury
declined
make
finding
ante
context
stare
decisis
compel
adherence
decision
whose
underpinnings
eroded
subsequent
developments
constitutional
law
gaudin
rejecting
constitutional
challenge
state
statute
increased
defendant
minimum
sentence
based
judicial
factfinding
mcmillan
relied
distinction
elements
sentencing
factors
distinction
undermined
apprendi
held
legislature
may
remove
jury
assessment
facts
increase
prescribed
range
penalties
criminal
defendant
exposed
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
harris
squarely
confronted
question
whether
mcmillan
stands
apprendi
five
members
recognized
cases
fact
incompatible
see
breyer
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
thomas
dissenting
nly
minority
embrac
es
distinction
mcmillan
apprendi
forms
basis
today
holding
opinion
justice
breyer
nevertheless
declined
apply
apprendi
mandatory
minimums
though
found
way
distinguish
sentencing
floors
sentencing
ceilings
yet
accept
apprendi
see
also
post
breyer
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
said
decision
may
questionable
precedential
value
majority
expressly
disagreed
rationale
plurality
seminole
tribe
florida
harris
stood
especially
weak
ground
vitality
depended
upon
possibility
might
retreat
apprendi
see
harris
opinion
breyer
happened
instead
individual
members
continued
question
apprendi
see
post
opinion
breyer
post
alito
dissenting
rule
become
even
firmly
rooted
sixth
amendment
jurisprudence
decade
since
harris
applied
apprendi
strike
mandatory
sentencing
systems
state
federal
levels
see
cunningham
california
booker
blakely
washington
last
term
recognized
apprendi
reasoning
extends
criminal
fines
see
southern
union
result
decisions
harris
become
even
outlier
reason
agree
appropriate
overrule
harris
apply
apprendi
basic
rule
mandatory
minimum
sentences
order
erase
th
anomaly
case
law
post
opinion
breyer
suggest
every
single
factor
supports
overruling
precedent
present
post
alito
dissenting
particularly
case
reliance
interests
minimal
reliance
interests
private
parties
nonexistent
stare
decisis
excuse
refusal
bring
coherence
consistency
patterson
sixth
amendment
law
doubt
remained
decision
ring
arizona
remove
ring
considered
apprendi
challenge
arizona
capital
sentencing
system
government
urged
us
adhere
decision
upholding
scheme
see
walton
arizona
resisted
plea
ring
case
differs
one
respect
consideration
issue
harris
reasons
given
harris
way
strengthens
force
stare
decisis
case
apprendi
firmly
rooted
jurisprudence
simply
gives
effect
five
members
recognized
harris
mcmillan
apprendi
irreconcilable
sixth
amendment
jurisprudence
home
justice
alito
therefore
mistaken
suggests
overrules
harris
currently
five
justices
willing
vote
post
doubt
illegitimate
overrule
precedent
simply
current
membership
disagrees
plausible
account
decision
today
overrules
mcmillan
harris
reasoning
decisions
thoroughly
undermined
intervening
decisions
significant
reliance
interests
stake
might
justify
adhering
result
likewise
justice
alito
exaggerates
suggests
case
creates
important
precedent
precedent
post
rarely
claim
stare
decisis
weak
constitutional
rule
criminal
procedure
issue
majority
previously
recognized
incompatible
broader
jurisprudence
finally
justice
alito
contention
apprendi
harris
stand
equal
footing
stare
decisis
purposes
post
simply
inconsistent
last
decade
sixth
amendment
jurisprudence
believe
decision
apply
apprendi
mandatory
minimums
consistent
stare
decisis
principles
join
opinion
opinion
breyer
allen
ryan
alleyne
petitioner
writ
certiorari
appeals
fourth
circuit
june
justice
breyer
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
eleven
years
ago
harris
wrote
easily
distinguish
apprendi
new
jersey
case
terms
logic
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
nonetheless
accepted
harris
holding
ot
yet
accept
rule
continue
disagree
apprendi
see
booker
opinion
dissenting
part
blakely
washington
dissenting
opinion
apprendi
supra
apprendi
defined
relevant
legal
regime
additional
decade
view
law
longer
tolerate
anomaly
distinction
creates
basic
error
apprendi
believe
failure
recognize
law
traditional
distinction
elements
crime
facts
constituting
crime
typically
jury
determine
sentencing
facts
facts
affecting
sentence
often
concerning
manner
offender
committed
crime
typically
judge
determine
early
historical
references
opinions
set
forth
favor
apprendi
refer
offense
elements
sentencing
facts
thus
justice
story
wrote
sixth
amendment
guarantee
trial
jury
offered
prejudices
judges
post
roberts
dissenting
quoting
commentaries
abr
likely
referring
elements
crime
best
answer
justice
scalia
implicit
question
apprendi
exactly
right
trial
jury
guarantee
guarantees
jury
determination
facts
constitute
elements
crime
concurring
opinion
although
set
forth
minority
views
see
booker
supra
opinion
dissenting
part
blakely
supra
dissenting
opinion
apprendi
repeat
point
make
clear
accept
dissent
characterization
sixth
amendment
simply
seeking
prevent
judicial
overreaching
sentencing
facts
issue
post
least
amendment
seeks
protect
defendants
wishes
opinions
government
well
ibid
quoting
story
supra
seems
highly
anomalous
read
apprendi
insisting
juries
find
sentencing
facts
permit
judge
impose
higher
sentence
insisting
juries
find
sentencing
facts
require
judge
impose
higher
sentence
see
harris
supra
opinion
breyer
overrule
harris
apply
apprendi
basic
rule
mandatory
minimum
sentences
erase
anomaly
maximum
sentence
issue
apprendi
means
judge
wishes
higher
sentence
unless
jury
finds
requisite
statutory
factual
predicate
tory
minimum
sentence
issue
application
apprendi
mean
government
force
judge
wish
impose
higher
sentence
unless
jury
finds
requisite
statutory
factual
predicate
instances
matter
concerns
higher
sentences
instances
factfinding
must
trigger
increase
instances
factfinding
act
check
first
instance
sentencing
judge
wrongly
imposing
higher
sentence
judge
believes
appropriate
second
instance
sentencing
judge
wrongly
required
impose
higher
sentence
judge
believes
inappropriate
harris
law
years
apprendi
law
even
longer
think
time
come
end
anomaly
apprendi
application
consequently
vote
overrule
harris
join
parts
iv
opinion
concur
judgment
roberts
dissenting
allen
ryan
alleyne
petitioner
writ
certiorari
appeals
fourth
circuit
june
chief
justice
roberts
justice
scalia
justice
kennedy
join
dissenting
suppose
jury
convicts
defendant
crime
carrying
sentence
five
ten
years
suppose
judge
says
sentence
defendant
five
years
finds
defendant
used
gun
crime
going
add
two
years
sentence
seven
one
thinks
violates
defendant
right
jury
trial
way
suppose
legislature
says
two
years
added
five
year
minimum
judge
finds
defendant
used
gun
crime
provision
affects
role
judge
limiting
discretion
effect
role
jury
affect
jury
role
violate
jury
trial
guarantee
sixth
amendment
framers
envisioned
sixth
amendment
protection
defendants
power
government
transforms
protection
judges
power
legislature
reason
respectfully
dissent
steady
stream
cases
decided
last
years
sought
identify
historical
understanding
sixth
amendment
jury
trial
right
determine
understanding
applies
modern
sentencing
practice
key
sources
task
treatises
common
law
cases
identifying
facts
qualified
elements
crime
therefore
alleged
indictment
proved
jury
beyond
reasonable
doubt
see
apprendi
new
jersey
collecting
sources
thomas
concurring
remarkable
uniformity
authorities
provided
element
whatever
law
essential
punishment
sought
inflicted
bishop
criminal
procedure
ed
see
also
apprendi
supra
indictment
must
contain
allegation
every
fact
legally
essential
punishment
quoting
reese
clifford
dissenting
bishop
supra
indictment
must
include
particular
fact
law
makes
essential
punishment
judging
common
law
rule
best
reflects
framers
understood
sixth
amendment
jury
right
protect
struck
sentencing
schemes
inconsistent
rule
apprendi
example
defendant
pleaded
guilty
crime
carried
maximum
sentence
ten
years
plea
however
trial
judge
determined
defendant
committed
crime
biased
purpose
new
jersey
law
finding
allowed
judge
impose
ten
additional
years
prison
exercising
authority
judge
sentenced
defendant
years
sentence
two
years
longer
possible
without
finding
bias
finding
essential
punishment
imposed
bishop
supra
see
apprendi
thus
line
common
law
rule
held
new
jersey
procedure
unconstitutional
subsequent
cases
worked
principle
applies
contexts
capital
sentencing
regimes
state
federal
sentencing
guidelines
criminal
fines
see
ring
arizona
blakely
washington
booker
southern
union
adhered
rule
rooted
common
law
understanding
described
laid
apprendi
fact
prior
conviction
fact
increases
penalty
crime
beyond
prescribed
statutory
maximum
must
submitted
jury
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
see
blakely
supra
quoting
statement
booker
supra
southern
union
supra
slip
see
also
ring
supra
sixth
amendment
permit
defendant
penalty
exceeding
maximum
receive
punished
according
facts
reflected
jury
verdict
quoting
apprendi
supra
alterations
original
embraced
common
law
rule
based
judgment
reflects
understanding
place
sixth
amendment
ratified
also
need
give
intelligible
content
right
jury
trial
blakely
supra
justice
scalia
wrote
apprendi
unclear
right
trial
jury
guarantee
guarantee
right
jury
determine
facts
determine
maximum
sentence
law
allows
concurring
opinion
judge
factfinding
authorize
sentence
beyond
allowed
jury
verdict
alone
jury
trial
mere
preliminary
judicial
inquisition
facts
crime
state
actually
seeks
punish
blakely
supra
framers
clearly
envisioned
robust
role
jury
appreciated
danger
inherent
allowing
justices
named
crown
imprison
dispatch
exile
man
obnoxious
government
instant
declaration
pleasure
blackstone
commentaries
laws
england
guard
violence
partiality
judges
appointed
crown
common
law
wisely
placed
th
strong
barrier
trial
jury
liberties
people
prerogative
crown
ibid
sixth
amendment
therefore
provided
trial
jury
double
security
prejudices
judges
may
partake
wishes
opinions
government
passions
multitude
may
demand
victim
clamorous
precipitancy
story
commentaries
constitution
abr
see
also
federalist
rossiter
ed
hamilton
discussing
criminal
jury
trial
protection
judicial
despotism
holdings
judge
may
sentence
defendant
jury
authorized
properly
preserve
jury
right
guard
judicial
overreaching
ii
risk
judicial
overreaching
jury
verdict
fully
authorized
judge
impose
sentence
anywhere
five
years
life
prison
additional
finding
fact
essential
punishment
within
range
rendering
verdict
jury
role
completed
discharged
judge
began
process
determining
within
range
set
alleyne
sentence
everyone
agrees
making
determination
judge
free
consider
relevant
facts
offense
offender
including
facts
found
jury
beyond
reasonable
doubt
oth
since
american
colonies
became
nation
courts
practiced
policy
sentencing
judge
exercise
wide
discretion
sources
types
evidence
used
assist
determining
kind
extent
punishment
imposed
within
limits
fixed
law
williams
new
york
apprendi
recognized
nothing
history
suggests
impermissible
judges
exercise
discretion
taking
consideration
various
factors
relating
offense
offender
imposing
judgment
within
range
prescribed
statute
emphasis
deleted
see
also
dillon
slip
majority
dispute
point
ante
ruling
today
mean
fact
influences
judicial
discretion
must
found
thus
majority
rule
absence
statutory
mandatory
minimum
constitutional
problem
judge
exercising
discretion
given
jury
verdict
decided
seven
years
prison
appropriate
penalty
crime
finding
firearm
brandished
offense
view
enough
resolve
case
jury
verdict
authorized
judge
impose
precise
sentence
imposed
precise
factual
reason
imposed
recognized
twice
sixth
amendment
demands
nothing
see
harris
mcmillan
pennsylvania
iii
approach
entirely
consistent
apprendi
explained
apprendi
constraint
normal
legislative
control
criminal
procedure
draws
legitimacy
two
primary
principles
common
law
understandings
elements
crime
need
preserve
jury
strong
barrier
defendants
state
neither
principles
supports
rule
majority
adopts
today
first
body
historical
evidence
supporting
today
new
rule
majority
identify
single
case
holding
fact
affecting
sentencing
floor
qualified
element
found
jury
point
treatise
language
effect
ante
sure
relatively
recent
vintage
mandatory
minimum
sentencing
enhancements
means
courts
encountered
fact
pattern
mean
suggest
absence
historical
condemnation
practice
conclusively
establishes
constitutionality
today
given
apprendi
rule
rests
heavily
affirmative
historical
evidence
practices
previously
applied
lack
evidence
statutory
minimums
good
reason
extend
majority
extension
apprendi
anything
preserve
role
jury
safeguard
defendant
state
even
jury
find
firearm
brandished
judge
impose
harsher
sentence
finding
long
sentence
remains
statutory
maximum
question
power
judges
juries
rule
place
today
legislature
tell
judges
certain
facts
carried
certain
weight
require
judge
devise
sentence
based
weight
long
sentence
remained
within
range
authorized
jury
name
jury
right
formed
barrier
defendant
state
majority
erected
barrier
judges
legislatures
establishing
discretionary
sentencing
domain
judges
legislatures
must
keep
respectful
distance
find
new
rule
impossible
square
historical
understanding
jury
right
defense
judges
defense
judges
see
apprendi
supra
scalia
concurring
judges
sometimes
necessary
remind
part
state
sixth
amendment
limits
judicial
power
extent
claimed
judicial
power
infringes
province
jury
blakely
limits
legislative
power
extent
power
infringes
province
jury
claimed
infringement
province
judge
jury
jury
right
work
iv
majority
offers
several
arguments
contrary
find
persuasive
first
majority
asserts
legally
prescribed
range
penalty
affixed
crime
follows
fact
increasing
either
end
range
produces
new
penalty
constitutes
ingredient
offense
ante
citation
omitted
syllogism
trips
gate
first
premise
constitutionally
relevant
penalty
includes
bottom
end
statutory
range
simply
assumes
answer
question
presented
neither
historical
sources
majority
points
gives
answer
bishop
treatise
speaks
situations
statute
prescribes
particular
punishment
range
possible
punishments
bishop
criminal
procedure
wharton
treatise
similarly
unhelpful
focusing
statutes
change
maximum
alter
nature
common
law
crime
see
wharton
criminal
law
rev
ed
sources
provided
apprendi
concurrence
offer
support
already
discussed
lack
historical
evidence
treatment
facts
altered
floor
sentencing
range
second
majority
observes
criminal
statutes
long
specified
floor
ceiling
sentence
ranges
evidence
define
legally
prescribed
penalty
ante
though
simply
assumes
core
premise
constitutionally
relevant
penalty
involves
statutory
minimum
maximum
unless
one
accepts
premise
faith
fact
statutes
long
specified
floor
ceiling
evidence
nothing
statutes
long
specified
floor
ceiling
help
say
floor
mandatory
range
relevant
wrongdoers
ceiling
ante
meaning
sixth
amendment
turn
wrongdoers
care
importantly
legal
rules
frequently
focus
maximum
sentence
ignoring
minimum
even
though
relevant
punishment
closest
case
question
whether
jury
right
applies
turns
whether
maximum
sentence
exceeds
six
months
say
whether
minimum
punishment
involves
time
prison
blanton
north
las
vegas
see
also
lewis
evaluating
seriousness
offense
place
primary
emphasis
maximum
prison
term
authorized
likewise
rights
vote
bear
arms
typically
denied
felons
convicted
crime
maximum
sentence
one
year
prison
see
richardson
ramirez
district
columbia
heller
black
law
dictionary
ed
examples
distinctions
turning
maximum
penalties
abound
cases
recidivism
enhancements
apply
prior
convictions
maximum
sentence
specified
number
years
see
minimum
sentence
relevant
punishment
statute
defines
mean
must
treated
maximum
sentence
law
allows
third
majority
offers
impossible
dispute
facts
increasing
legally
prescribed
floor
aggravate
punishment
ante
argument
proves
much
apply
equal
force
fact
leads
judge
exercise
discretion
choose
penalty
higher
otherwise
chosen
majority
nowhere
explains
jury
right
bars
determination
congress
brandishing
fact
makes
offense
worth
two
extra
years
identical
determination
judge
simply
calling
one
aggravation
discretion
trick
fourth
majority
argues
answer
say
defendant
received
sentence
without
particular
factual
finding
pointing
defendant
convicted
sentenced
assault
jury
finds
facts
larceny
even
punishments
prescribed
crime
identical
ante
hypothetical
case
legislature
chosen
define
two
crimes
two
different
sets
elements
courts
must
course
respect
legislative
judgment
tells
us
nothing
courts
override
legislature
decision
create
separate
crimes
instead
treat
particular
fact
trigger
minimum
sentence
within
range
quibble
majority
application
stare
decisis
precedents
believe
majority
new
rule
safeguarding
power
judges
juries
finds
support
history
purpose
sixth
amendment
respectfully
dissent
alito
dissenting
allen
ryan
alleyne
petitioner
writ
certiorari
appeals
fourth
circuit
june
justice
alito
dissenting
overrules
precedent
barely
mention
stare
decisis
see
ante
stare
decisis
course
inexorable
command
field
constitutional
law
payne
tennessee
nevertheless
consistent
willingness
reconsider
precedent
harris
mcmillan
pennsylvania
cast
aside
simply
majority
disagrees
approach
may
properly
followed
future
cases
see
arizona
gant
alito
dissenting
mind
reconsider
existing
precedent
prime
candidate
apprendi
new
jersey
although
apprendi
purported
rely
original
understanding
jury
trial
right
strong
reasons
question
analysis
point
see
bibas
judicial
sentence
enhancements
world
guilty
pleas
yale
critiquing
historical
evidence
relied
upon
apprendi
majority
concurrence
concluding
broad
judicial
discretion
characteristic
misdemeanor
sentencing
undercuts
suggestion
sentencing
sacred
province
juries
alone
even
tradition
uniform
suggesting
common
law
fixed
rule
subject
evidence
link
ed
tradition
back
time
founding
little
chen
lost
history
apprendi
blakely
petition
rehearing
fed
sentencing
blakely
apprendi
undoubtedly
founded
erroneous
historical
framers
views
wrote
amendment
guarantee
fact
framers
wrote
dozen
indeterminate
sentencing
ranges
first
federal
crime
bill
see
stat
simply
overlooked
mitchell
apprendi
domain
sup
rev
arguing
context
defending
broader
conception
jury
right
apprendi
historical
claim
sentencing
enhancements
treated
offenses
whenever
increased
maximum
punishment
demonstrably
platitudes
joel
prentiss
bishop
treatises
justices
repeatedly
invoke
support
assertion
sentencing
enhancements
increased
maximum
treated
elements
offense
false
accurately
describe
law
actual
decisions
era
footnotes
omitted
decision
creates
precedent
precedent
may
greater
precedential
effect
dubious
decisions
relies
footnotes
recognized
narrow
exception
general
rule
fact
prior
conviction
parties
contest
decision
vitality
revisit
purposes
decision
today
juries
must
find
facts
increase
either
statutory
maximum
minimum
sixth
amendment
applies
finding
fact
alters
legally
prescribed
range
way
aggravates
penalty
importantly
distinct
factfinding
used
guide
judicial
discretion
selecting
punishment
within
limits
fixed
law
williams
new
york
findings
fact
may
lead
judges
select
sentences
severe
ones
selected
without
facts
sixth
amendment
govern
element
sentencing
infra
apprendi
rejected
argument
similar
one
advanced
harris
apprendi
state
new
jersey
argued
increasing
defendant
statutory
maximum
challenged
count
violate
sixth
amendment
judge
imposed
consecutive
sentences
conjunction
counts
produce
sentence
defendant
actually
received
count
issue
found
possibility
preclude
sixth
amendment
violation
ibid
many
criminal
statutes
allow
possibility
example
illinois
law
provides
sentence
years
imprisonment
intimidation
comp
ch
west
years
aggravated
intimidation
elements
aggravated
intimidation
include
elements
intimidation
plus
one
enumerated
aggravating
fact
statute
jury
found
element
intimidation
judge
purported
find
fact
elevated
offense
aggravated
intimidation
sixth
amendment
certainly
violated
even
defendant
received
sentence
fell
within
ranges
see
also
la
rev
stat
ann
west
sentencing
range
simple
arson
years
sentencing
range
aggravated
arson
years
mont
code
ann
sentencing
range
kidnapping
years
life
aggravated
kidnapping
force
stare
decisis
nadir
cases
concerning
procedural
rules
implicate
fundamental
constitutional
protections
harris
irreconcilable
reasoning
apprendi
original
meaning
sixth
amendment
follow
latter
see
also
tucker
judges
may
exercise
sentencing
discretion
inquiry
broad
scope
largely
unlimited
either
kind
information
may
consider
source
may
come
williams
new
york
oth
since
american
colonies
became
nation
courts
country
england
practiced
policy
sentencing
judge
exercise
wide
discretion
sources
types
evidence
used
assist
determining
kind
extent
punishment
imposed
within
limits
fixed
law
footnotes
speaking
justice
ginsburg
justice
kagan
justice
sotomayor
argues
harris
stare
decisis
value
undermined
subsequent
reasoning
apprendi
line
cases
fact
one
rationale
harris
commanded
five
votes
disagree
view
harris
force
vitiated
apprendi
line
cases
two
reasons
first
line
cases
predicated
purported
sixth
amendment
requirement
juries
find
facts
increase
maximum
penalties
mandatory
minimums
accordingly
chief
justice
dissent
persuasively
explains
ante
apprendi
progeny
impact
distinct
question
resolved
harris
bear
jury
right
second
apprendi
line
intellectually
incoherent
undermine
contrary
precedents
rationale
apprendi
broadly
construed
case
ny
fact
law
increases
penalty
crime
must
submitted
jury
found
beyond
reasonable
doubt
ante
taken
seriously
discretionary
sentencing
prescribed
also
held
violate
sixth
amendment
majority
willing
go
reasoning
leads
correct
say
harris
way
strengthens
force
stare
decisis
case
expressly
disagreed
rationale
plurality
ante
sotomayor
concurring
quoting
seminole
tribe
florida
decisions
one
rationale
commands
majority
including
prominent
decisions
based
views
single
justice
often
thought
precedential
effect
see
booker
regents
univ
cal
bakke
opinion
powell
course
harris
entitled
stare
decisis
weight
neither
opinion
case
four
members
think
holding
correct
reading
constitution
see
ante
breyer
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
concedes
ante
justice
sotomayor
concurrence
selective
discussion
factors
previously
found
relevant
application
stare
decisis
example
argue
presumably
good
argument
made
harris
mcmillan
pennsylvania
provide
framework
criminal
prosecutions
carried
least
past
years
proved
vieth
jubelirer
plurality
opinion
quoting
payne
tennessee
contend
circumstances
outside
changed
radically
undermine
harris
critical
factual
assumptions
randall
sorrell
plurality
opinion
indeed
party
amicus
cited
circumstances
short
fact
currently
five
justices
willing
vote
overrule
harris
five
justices
willing
overrule
apprendi
compelling
reason
overrules
former
rather
latter
opportunity
arises
future
overrule
apprendi
present
case
presumably
involve
procedural
rules
govern
primary
conduct
implicate
reliance
interests
private
parties
ante
sotomayor
concurring
precedent
sets
today
relevant
issue
stare
decisis