In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court held in Alleyne v. United States that any fact that by law increases a criminal penalty is an âelementâ of an offense that must be submitted to a jury and determined beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, Harris v. United States is overruled. The opinion was released on June 17, 2013.
In Harris, the Court held that judicial fact finding that increases mandatory minimum sentences is allowed under the Sixth Amendment. A distinction was made between facts that increase only the mandatory minimum and ones that increase the statutory maximum. However, in Alleyne, the Court decided that this is inconsistent with their decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey.
The defendant was charged with a few federal offenses including robbery affecting interstate commerce, 18 U. S. C.§1951(a), and carrying or using a firearm related to a violent crime, §924(c)(1)(A). The latter carries a five year mandatory minimum sentence which increases to a seven year mandatory minimum if the firearm is brandishedâand jumps to a ten year mandatory minimum if discharged.
No finding the gun was brandished
He was then convicted by a jury. They indicated on a verdict form that the defendant used or carried a firearm connected with a violent crime; however, there was no finding that the gun was brandished. Yet, the presentence report recommended a seven year mandatory minimum anyway. The defendant objected and argued that due to the information provided on the verdict form, he should be subject only to the five year minimum. He also contended that raising the mandatory minimum based on a sentencing judgeâs determination would be a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. However, the district court overruled the objection and stated that under Harris, âbrandishingâ was a sentencing factor that could be found by a preponderance of the evidence and still be constitutional. The court ruled that the evidence supported the finding and sentenced him to seven years in prison on that count. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Sixth Amendment requires that those accused of crimes have the right to a trial by an impartial jury. This right added with the Due Process Clause necessitates that each âelementâ of a crime be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury.
The Supreme Court stated that in McMillian v. Pennsylvania, the Court held that facts that increase a mandatory minimum are sentencing factors that a judge can find by a preponderance of the evidence. Yet, Apprendi held that any fact that increased a statutory maximum must be an âelementâ of the crime determined by a jury. Harris declined to apply Apprendiâs holding to a situation involving an increase of a mandatory minimum.
Additionally, the Court asserted that the touchstone for discerning whether a fact must be found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury is whether it is an âelementâ of the crime charged. The Court went on to state it is indisputable that a fact which triggers a mandatory minimum changes the sentence range. Since the range is the penalty attached to an offense, it follows that any fact that increases either the minimum or the maximum introduces a new penalty and is therefore an âelementâ of the crime.
In addition, the Court expressed that for a long time criminal statutes have specified both the floors and ceilings of the sentencing ranges, which illustrate that both constitute the legal penalty. Moreover, this practice allows criminal defendants to know the full potential penalties.
In conclusion, the Court vacated the judgment related to the sentence on §924(c)(1)(A) and remanded for resentencing in accordance with the juryâs verdict. Read the full text version of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion.