Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to a greater punishment than that authorized by the jury’s guilty verdict?” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 494. The statute invalidated therein, the Court determined, violated the defendant’s constitutional rights to due process and to a jury trial, which, collectively, entitle the accused to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a charged offense. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 477, 490. ¶9 The Court has since applied the rule set forth in Apprendi to invalidate various sentencing schemes, in each case determining that the facts authorizing the imposition of a sentence greater than that authorized by a jury verdict or guilty plea were required to be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 127 S. Ct. 856, 166 L. Ed. 2d 856 (2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the sentencing court violated the sixth amendment when it elevated a sentence based on evidence of failed attempts to rehabilitate and a history of alcohol and drug abuse (B) holding that californias indeterminate sentencing law which authorized the trial court judge to find facts exposing a defendant to an elevated upper term sentence violated the right to a jury trial (C) holding that judge found sentence enhancements mandatorily imposed under the guidelines that result in a sentence greater than that authorized by the jury verdict or facts admitted by the defendant violate the sixth amendments guarantee of the right to trial by jury (D) holding that the trial judge rather than the jury makes the determination of whether the defendant violated the implied consent law (E) holding that term court encompasses trial by both judge and jury
Output (English): holding that the sentencing court violated the sixth amendment when it elevated a sentence based on evidence of failed attempts to rehabilitate and a history of alcohol and drug abuse