Document: 542 U.S. 296 BLAKELYv.WASHINGTON No. 02-1632. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 23, 2004. Decided June 24, Petitioner pleaded guilty to kidnaping his estranged wife. The facts admitted in plea, standing alone, supported a maximum sentence 53 months, but the judge imposed 90-month after finding that petitioner had acted with deliberate cruelty, statutorily enumerated ground for departing from standard range. Washington Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioner's argument sentencing procedure deprived him federal constitutional right have jury determine beyond reasonable doubt all legally essential sentence. Held: Because supporting exceptional were neither by nor found jury, violated Sixth Amendment trial jury. Pp. 301-314. (a) This case requires apply rule Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 490, that, "[o]ther than fact prior conviction, any increases penalty crime prescribed statutory must be submitted and proved doubt." relevant purposes is may impose based solely on reflected verdict or defendant. Here, could not because law an factors other those used computing standard-range Petitioner's analogous upheld McMillan Pennsylvania, 477 79, Williams York, 337 241, which greater what state authorized alone. Regardless whether judge's authority enhanced depends specified fact, one several facts, aggravating it remains jury's alone does authorize 301-305. (b) Court's commitment this context reflects just respect longstanding precedent, need give intelligible content fundamental trial. 305-308. (c) about constitutionality determinate sentencing, only how can implemented way respects Amendment. Framers' paradigm criminal justice common-law ideal limited power accomplished strict division between That preserved without abandoning at no sacrifice fairness 308-313. 111 Wash. App. 851, 47 P. 3d 149, reversed remanded. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, STEVENS, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, filed dissenting opinion, BREYER, joined, REHNQUIST, C. KENNEDY, joined except as Part IV-B, post, p. 314. 326. 328. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS WASHINGTON. Jeffrey L. Fisher argued cause briefs petitioner. John D. Knodell III brief respondent. Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben States amicus curiae urging affirmance. With Olson, Assistant Attorney Wray, Matthew Roberts, Nina Goodman.* JUSTICE SCALIA Court. 1 Ralph Howard Blakely, Jr., months. Pursuant law, court "exceptional" 90 months making judicial determination he "deliberate cruelty." 40, 49. We consider 2 * married wife Yolanda 1973. He was evidently difficult man live with, having been diagnosed various times psychological personality disorders including paranoid schizophrenia. His ultimately divorce. In 1998, abducted her their orchard home Grant County, Washington, binding duct tape forcing knifepoint into wooden box bed pickup truck. process, implored dismiss divorce suit related trust proceedings. 3 When couple's 13-year-old son Ralphy returned school, ordered follow another car, threatening harm shotgun if did do so. escaped sought help when they stopped gas station, continued friend's house Montana. finally arrested friend called police. 4 State charged first-degree kidnaping, Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.40.020(1) (2000).1 Upon reaching plea agreement, however, reduced charge second-degree involving domestic violence use firearm, see §§ 9A.40.030(1), 10.99.020(3)(p), 9.94A.125.2 entered admitting elements domestic-violence firearm allegations, facts. 5 then proceeded sentencing. class B felony. 9A.40.030(3). provides "[n]o person convicted [class B] felony shall punished confinement ... exceeding term ten years." 9A.20.021(1)(b). Other provisions further limit range sentences impose. Washington's Sentencing Reform Act specifies, offense "standard range" 49 See 9.94A.320 (seriousness level V kidnaping); 27 (offender score 9.94A.360); 9.94A.310(1), 2-V (standard 13-17 months); 9.94A.310(3)(b) (36-month enhancement).3 A above finds "substantial compelling reasons justifying sentence." 9.94A.120(2). lists justify such departure, recites illustrative rather exhaustive. 9.94A.390. Nevertheless, "[a] reason offered considered takes account are offense." Gore, 143 2d 288, 315-316, 21 262, 277 (2001). imposes sentence, set forth findings conclusions it. 9.94A.120(3). reviewing will reverse "under clearly erroneous there insufficient evidence record support imposing Id., 315, 3d, (citing 9.94A.210(4)). 6 recommended within After hearing Yolanda's description rejected State's recommendation — 37 maximum. justified cruelty," departure cases. §9.94A.390(2)(h)(iii).4 7 Faced unexpected increase more three years objected. accordingly conducted 3-day bench featuring testimony petitioner, Yolanda, Ralphy, police officer, medical experts. hearing, issued 32 concluding: 8 "The defendant's motivation commit kidnapping complex, contributed mental condition disorders, pressures litigation, impending litigation anger over troubled interpersonal relationships spouse children. While misguidedly intended forcefully reunite family, attempt so subservient desire terminate lawsuits modify title ownerships benefit. 9 methods homogeneous motive. stealth surprise, took advantage victim's isolation. immediately employed physical violence, restrained victim tape, threatened injury death herself others. coerced providing information application knife. subsisting restraining order." 48-49. 10 adhered initial cruelty. 11 appealed, arguing 870-871, 159 (2002), relying rejection similar challenge supra, 311-315, 275-277. denied discretionary review. 148 1010, 62 889 (2003). granted certiorari. 540 965 II 12 us we expressed 490 (2000): "Other two tenets jurisprudence: "truth every accusation" against defendant "should afterwards confirmed unanimous suffrage twelve equals neighbours," W. Blackstone, Commentaries Laws England 343 (1769), "an accusation lacks particular makes punishment . requirements common reason," J. Bishop, Criminal Procedure 87, 55 (2d ed. 1872).5 These principles acknowledged courts treatises since earliest days graduated sentencing; compiled authorities Apprendi, S., 476-483, 489-490, n. 15; id., 501-518 (THOMAS, concurring), repeat them here.6 13 involved Jersey hate-crime statute 20-year despite usual 10-year maximum, committed "`with purpose intimidate race, color, gender, handicap, religion, sexual orientation ethnicity.'" 468-469 (quoting N. Stat. 2C:44-3(e) (West Supp. 1999-2000)). Ring Arizona, 536 584, 592-593, applied Arizona factors. each case, concluded rights under challenged factual finding. 491-497; Ring, 603-609. 14 sentenced 53-month nevertheless contends violation "statutory maximum" felonies It observes exceed limit. 9.94A.420. Our precedents make clear, basis 602 ("`the would receive according alone'" 483)); Harris States, 545, 563 (2002) (plurality opinion) (same); cf. 488 (facts defendant). words, additional findings. inflicts allow, has "which punishment," 55, exceeds proper authority. 15 plea. Those because, explained, offense," 2d, 277, included 9.94A.320, 9.94A.310(3)(b).7 Had reversed. 9.94A.210(4). "maximum sentence" here 20 (because upon hate crime) aggravator). 16 defends drawing analogy 79 (1986), 241 (1949). Neither point. scheme minimum fact. 81. specifically noted "does excess otherwise allowed [the underlying] 82; Harris, 567. indeterminate-sentencing regime (but compel him) rely outside determining death. 242-243, 2. "sentenced defendant] giving all." 252. Thus, 17 Finally, tries distinguish pointing out grounds its distinction immaterial. Whether (as Apprendi), Ring), here), acquires some fact.8 18 comply Amendment, invalid.9 19 mere procedural formality, reservation our structure. Just ensures people's ultimate control legislative executive branches, meant ensure judiciary. Letter XV Federal Farmer (Jan. 18, 1788), reprinted Complete Anti-Federalist 320 (H. Storing 1981) (describing "secur[ing] people large, rightful controul department"); Adams, Diary Entry (Feb. 12, 1771), Works Adams 252, 253 (C. 1850) ("[T]he people, should complete judgment judicature" legislature); Thomas Jefferson Abbé Arnoux (July 19, 1789), Papers 282, 283 (J. Boyd 1958) ("Were I decide best omitted Legislative Judiciary department, say better leave Legislative"); Jones 526 227, 244-248 (1999). carries design ensuring derives wholly verdict. Without restriction, exercise Framers intended. who reject resigned alternatives. first find whatever legislature chooses label crime, labels matter much judge. mean, example, committing murder even illegally possessing illegal lane change while fleeing scene. Not Apprendi's critics advocate absurd result. Cf. 552-553 (O'CONNOR, dissenting). function circuitbreaker machinery relegated point something wrong, preliminary inquisition actually seeks punish.10 second alternative legislatures establish limits crossed when, perhaps, factor "tail wags dog substantive McMillan, 88. What means operation go too far estimation role 22 subjectivity obvious. below cruelty essentially same very avoided pleading lesser offense. conceded might held irrelevant. App., 869, P.3d, 158.11 exceeded almost 70%; cases Oxborrow, 106 525, 528, 533, 723 1123, 1125, 1128 (1986) (en banc) (15-year sentence; 1-year sentence); Branch, 129 635, 650, 919 1228, 1235 (1996) (4-year 3-month sentence). Did these cases? There answer legal analysis provide. yardstick, always possible disagree judgments never refute them. 23 incorporates manipulable bright-line plausibility claim left definition scope up judges' intuitive sense far. think plausible all, put jury-trial guarantee Constitution unwilling government mark IV 24 By reversing below, not, it, "find[ing] schemes unconstitutional." Brief Respondent 34. constitutional, Several policies prompted adoption proportionality gravity parity among defendants. 9.94A.010 (2000). Nothing said impugns salutary objectives. 25 O'CONNOR argues factfinding entail less discretion indeterminate schemes, latter implies former. Post, 314-323. flawed number levels. First, terms limitation power, power. extent claimed infringes province Indeterminate discretion, sure, expense traditional lawful imposition penalty. Of course involve factfinding, (like parole board) implicitly deems important discretion. But pertain difference insofar impingement concerned. system says punish burglary 40 years, burglar knows risking jail. punishes 30 added gun, enters unarmed entitled bearing entitlement 26 assuming restraint unrelated objective, clear disserves goal. Determinate judicial-factfinding jury-factfinding schemes. overall do, given choice simply assumes net effect favor judges, she empirical prediction. Indeed, points exactly way: Kansas infirmities determinate-sentencing Gould, 271 Kan. 394, 404-414, 801, 809-814 (2001), responded reestablishing applying current regime. May 29, 2002, ch. 170, 2002 Sess. pp. 1018-1023 (codified 21-4718 (2003 Cum. Supp.)); Appellate Defender Office Amicus Curiae 3-7. result less, more, BREYER works detriment defendants plead depriving opportunity argue 331. nothing prevents waiving rights. pleads guilty, free seek enhancements long either stipulates consents factfinding. 488; Duncan Louisiana, 391 145, 158 (1968). If appropriate waivers procured, continue offer guilty. Even stands consent enhancements, well interest prejudice understand possibly work free, costs outweigh benefits, render inapplicable.12 28 Nor merit BREYER's contention unfair respond enacting "17-element robbery crime[s]," prosecutors bargain. 331, 335-336 Bibas, Judicial Fact-Finding Sentence Enhancements World Guilty Pleas, 110 Yale 1097 (2001)). Bargaining already exists regard stipulate contest applicable. bargaining elements, probably favors Every new element prosecutor threaten also prove doubt. Moreover, sprawling most codes, affect (even nonbinding) recommendations, shortage terrorem tools prosecutors' disposal. King & Klein, Plea Bargaining, 54 Stan. 295, (2001) ("Every prosecutorial chip mentioned Professor Bibas existed pre-Apprendi post-Apprendi"). 29 Any evaluation "fairness" compare replaced, defendant, warning indictment routinely potential balloon little five life imprisonment, U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A), (D),13 peers doubt, extracted report probation officer thinks likely got wrong. conceive measure fault utterly speculative effects identifies champions. Suffice exists, with. implausibility BREYER'S exposed lineup amici case. hard believe National Association Defense Lawyers somehow duped wrong side. asking protected article written defense lawyer professor former prosecutor. 331 supra); American Law Schools Directory Teachers 2003-2004, 319. 31 claims attenuate connection "real conduct real punishment" encouraging restricting alternatives adversarial 334, 338-339. short questionable premise encourage bargaining, 311, 12) benefit choose forgo protection. guarantees trials take place. elect waive (because, moment particularly oppressive) provision guaranteeing availability option disserved. general argument—that undermines factfinding— criticism assault generally. esteem "nonadversarial" truth-seeking processes, 339, supports either. traditions entrenches, admit discovered testing before Commentaries, 373-374, 379-381. convinced equity favors, views ones bound uphold. 33 Ultimately, decision cannot turn degree impairs efficiency justice. One certainly both values served leaving entirely hands professionals; many nations world, following civil-law traditions, course. shred justice: administrative perfection, As held, insist punishment. Under dissenters' alternative, right. end matter. 34 35 prison confessed, disputed thought demand liberty, suffer modest inconvenience submitting "the 343, lone employee State. 36 reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici reversal Civil Liberties Union et al. James E. Lobsenz, Aaron H. Caplan, Steven R. Shapiro; Randall Hodgkinson; David M. Porter Sheryl Gordon McCloud. affirmance Alabama William Pryor, Alabama, Kevin Newsom, General, Michael B. Billingsley, Nathan A. Forrester, Attorneys respective follows: Jane Brady Delaware, Charles Crist, Florida, Mark Bennett Hawaii, Lisa Madigan Illinois, Jon Bruning Nebraska, Hardy Myers Oregon, Greg Abbott Texas, Shurtleff Utah, Jerry Kilgore Virginia; Justice Legal Foundation Kent Scheidegger. Parts code recodified amended. cite throughout time agreed 9A.36.021(1)(c), 10.99.020(3)(b) 14-month count ran concurrently stipulation subjected measures "no-contact" order, 10.99.040, factors, questioned validity independent sufficiency departure. 868-870, 3, 158-159, (2002). affirmed crueltyIbid. therefore focus factor. cites O'CONNOR'SApprendi dissent Bishop quotation indictments trigger aggravation 340-341 (dissenting opinion). course, notes, referring different quotation, Archbold's treatise. Archbold, Pleading Evidence Cases 51, 188 (15th 1862)). "similar," 341, chalk cheese. "addressing" "problem" statutes aggravate offenses. Ibid. Rather, entire chapter treatise devoted "every §81, 6, 50-56. "example" principle (appearing pages language quote text above), notes assault. 82, 51-52. nowhere slightest indication example. academic supporters claim. 1097, 1131-1132 (conceding Bishop's criticizing "natural-law theorizing"). O'CONNOR'S quantity historical theApprendi rule, 323 opinion): bears repeating issue States' reclassify (we agree does); line, ours hers, draws. Criticism favoring force accompanied hers. provide coherent meaning guarantee, unless considers "whatever far" coherent. infra, contend combined suggests not. 9.94A.390(2)(h)(i)-(iii) must, present bare judicially determined factsrequire enhancement merely allow asamicus curiae, urges affirm. differences Guidelines questions constitutionally significant. 25-30. us, express believes "built-in political check" prevent lawmakers manipulating fashionPost, 322. immediate practical advantages 318-320, suggest forces would, anything, pull opposite direction. entrench shows decisions area. Another example conversion separate going "too obstruction-of-justice enhancement, seepost, Why perjury during underlying offense, centuries, 136-138 (1769)), unclear. responds notrequired 335-336. True enough. why asserts coercing hardheartedness is, want judge-pronounced norm won't let choosing regime? expensive unwieldy provide," 336, obvious contesting hypothetical 17-element none third rest rests prediction (rather second) third. To dissenters forbid violate tail wag dog. source Its precise effect, has, presumably require ratio sentencing-factor add-on basic caudal vertebrae body breed canine longest tail. Or perhaps average breeds. median. Regrettably,Apprendi prevented full development line jurisprudence. 38 whom joins, CHIEF KENNEDY join dissenting. 39 legacy today's consolidation Judiciaries. Congress legislatures: you constrain judges bring uniformity cost you—dearly. faced burdens extension 466 (2000), context, trim eliminate altogether guidelines and, them, reform. thus majority expressly declare unconstitutional, ante, 308; for, residents "Apprendi-land" fond saying, inquiry form, effect." 494; 613 (SCALIA, concurring). "effect" implausible required Due Process Clause consequences disastrous, respectfully dissent. look history leading enactment appreciate damage cause. Prior 1981, like Government, scheme. separated broad categories: "class A," carrying life; B," 0 years; C," years. 9A.20.020 (2000); 1981 137, 534. conjunction boards, virtually unfettered falling anywhere range, probation—i. e., jail all. 9.95.010-9.95.011; Boerner Lieb, Crime 71, 73 (M. Tonry 2001) (hereinafter Lieb) ("Judges few exceptions, subject review abuse discretion"). Boerner, 2.4, 2-27 2-28 (1985). 41 unguided inevitably resulted severe disparities received histories. Lieb 126-127; Rep. 98-225, (1983) (Senate Report precursor 1984) ("[E]very day mete unjustifiably wide offenders histories, crimes, circumstances.... disparities, occur stage, traced directly confers responsible implementing sentence"). reflect criteria, often correlated suspect variables race. 126-128. Breyer, Key Compromises Which They Rest, Hofstra 1, (1988) (elimination racial disparity behind Congress' creation Commission). 42 counteract trends, passed 1981. laudable "mak[ing] accountable public," "[e]nsur[ing] proportionate seriousness [and] commensurate others offenses." increased ranges types (though mandatory felonies), reclassified placed meaningful constraints ranges, eliminated parole. attempting manipulate offenses circumvent protections Bill Rights. trying much-needed uniformity, transparency, accountability "`labyrinthine' corrections `lack[ed] discretion.'" F. Zimring, Making Punishment Fit Crime: Consumers' Guide Reform, Occasional Paper (1977)). 43 Far disregarding due process right, today suggests, reform Before passage Act, idea probation. idiosyncracies specifics background. know any, board. presumptive be; good deciding range; guaranteed appellate protect arbitrary 93 ("By consulting sheet, practitioners identify applicable scoring rules history, available options case"). still face sentences, now least know, before, actions. 44 move guided equal protection well. Over past substantial reduction across 126 (Racial exist "are accounted variables—the conviction record"); 127 ("[J]udicial court's race"). traceable constraining guidelines—namely, "presumptive range[s]" "exceptional sentences" ranges. 128. For instance, retain unreviewable first-time offender certain sex lenient contemplated guidelines. unjustifiable persisted sentences: lesson powerful: unstructured unreviewed discretion." Ibid.; Minority Commission, Crutchfield, Weis, Engen, Gainey, Racial/Ethnic Disparities Exceptional Sentences State, Final 51-53 (Sept. 1993) ("[E]xceptional major sentencing"). 45 cannot, Washington's, serve values. Ante, 308. says: "[t]his Amendment." significant legislature's historically element, warrants higher prohibition majority's exacts tax. 46 real. approach, upper taken assess range—such drug quantity, risk bodily harm—all re Winship, 397 358 (1970), legislature, judge, constrains pre-existing enough costs. rightly bad acts guilt—such "character evidence" traditionally off guilt phase tendency inflame passions See, e. g., Fed. Rule Evid. 404; Imwinkelried, Giannelli, Gilligan, Lederer, Courtroom 285 (3d 1998). desires uniform consideration impact guilt, bear separate, full-blown proceeding. 48 Some discovered, discoverable, act obstructive manner post-trial Manual 3C1.1 (Nov. 2003) USSG) (2-point obstruction justice). cases, arises late notice wanting vest sufficient prosecution perjury. And, behavior constitute already-existing willing undertake unlikely criminalizing relatively minor behavior. Likewise, known distribution reveal sold primarily wishing revelation (and discretion) prosecution. available—a prosecution, aggravated barred Double Jeopardy Clause. Blockburger 284 299 (1932) (government prosecute not). 50 correct Government 309-310. simple economics dictate inevitable attendant failings.1 51 alter exposed. 9A.40.030 (2003) (second 1975); Pawling, 226, 228-229, 597 1367, 1369 (1979) 1977). informed charging document, prison. 63, 66, 76. discussed above, acts; vindicated informing stakes trial; invidious characteristics race 52 Given observations, me discern besides doctrinaire formalism motivates decision. chides preferring nuanced interpretation generally defer acknowledging existence constraints—what calls approach. 307 (emphasis deleted). indeed adopting balanced case-by-case approach Rights, rigid destroys everything path, 552-554 dissenting) ("Because `increase penalty' Constitution, evaluate Jersey's sentence-enhancement analyzing examined cases" (citation omitted)). accept worth vindicating own sake, explain Apprendi's, today's, deferring formal pedigree. consistent Almendarez-Torres 523 224 (1998) (fact recidivist offense); Watts, 519 (1997) (per curiam) (acquittal bar enhancement); Witte 515 389 (1995) (no double jeopardy uncharged Walton 497 639 (1990) (aggravating capital case); Mistretta 361 (1989) (Federal separation powers); increasing necessarily elements); primary defining crimes where belongs. 523-554 easier administer inasmuch forced regulations adherence conceivably produce results, 306; but, demonstrates, results disserve purports vindicate. deference retains built-in check shifting easier-to-prove offenses—e. hypothesized guise traffic 306. check, "any discretion" courts. mantle original intent. explained elsewhere, handful mid-19th century persuasive value 18th century. 525-528 foreign Framers, 478-479 1862)), vesting offenders. 56 disturbing. unique. Numerous enacted systems, Government. Alaska 12.55.155 (2002); Ark. 16-90-804 Supp.); Fla. 921.0016 (2003); 21-4701 seq. Mich. Comp. 769.34 2004); Minn. 244.10 Gen. 15A-1340.16 (Lexis 2003); Ore. Admin. 213-008-0001 204 Pa. 303 (2004), reproduced Cons. 9721 (Purdon 3553; 991 Today's casts doing, threatens untold judgments. currently pending direct appeal jeopardy. hold Schriro Summerlin, 348, fortiori Apprendi) retroactively habeas review, decided 2000 arguably remain open collateral attack. Teague Lane, 489 301 ("[A] announces dictated precedent existing became final").2 57 courts, starting today, equally unsettling: How sentences? Do mitigating factors? jettison altogether? ignores havoc wreak country. 58 impacts others, as, Guidelines. 305, ("The them"); 496-497 (claiming overrule Walton, soon thereafter overruled Ring); 497, (reserving question Guidelines). promulgated agency nominally located Branch irrelevant reasoning. Stinson 508 (1993); guideline, Mistretta, U.S., 393-394. 59 structure likewise halfheartedly distinction. 27-29. identical upward established 3553(b) USSG 5K2.0. structural vulnerable struck down finds, "considering Act], 9.94A.120 elsewhere nonexhaustive list satisfy definition. flatly rejects respondent's soft constraints, amount survive Apprendi. 305. chapters Guidelines, findings, meet fate. e.g., 2K2.1 (increases firearms involved, possession stolen); 2B1.1 (increase financial money victims, weapon); (general 60 "extraordinary inoffensive holding be. nonexhaustive. facts" doctrine precludes reliance 9.94A.370(2) (2000) (codifying doctrine). comport imagine would. 61 feared come pass: lost, tens thousands 549-559 dissenting); 619-621 63 64 considerable laws administration stated O'CONNOR's dissent, plus more: my respectful submission, disregards branches "converse matters vital interest." 361, 408 (1989). establishes presupposes, "`autonomy'" "`separateness,'" "`interdependence'" "`reciprocity.'" 381 Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. Sawyer, 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, concurring)). Constant, constructive discourse integral admirable part design. Case-by-case determinations yield patterns refined codified standards. enactments followed incremental interpretation, again, cycle repeats. recurring dialogue, elaboration evolution theory action. 65 prime collaborative process. Dissatisfied participants system, pressed reforms. response, legislators drew participants' shared experiences problems, which, explains, sometimes rise injury. recognized, interchange actors Constitution's protections. 66 concerns Congress. counsels caution. Unlike implicates collective wisdom side continuing dialogue fair laboratories innovation experiment. Ice Liebmann, 311 (Brandeis, apparent irony destruction devised democratically elected legislators, shuts nonjudicial, sources ideas experience. faintly disguised distrust purported usurpation trials. tells spent studying problem valuable resources "calling accumulated experience uniquely ken judges," 412, efforts naught. commanded scrap start over. 67 result, decision, unfortunate, understandable defensible. reason, prohibit dynamic fruitful marked levels 68 69 view, "`any jury.'" 490). "`[P]rescribed maximum'" authorizes "solely verdict." 301, find, charged, (punishment-increasing) carried crime. 70 impulse produced holding. Imagine classic example—a (or guideline) ordinary bank robbery, 15-year gun. ask gun's presence gun? gun circumstance, circumstance? sets circumstances functionally identical. instances, follows (related to, bank, taking, thing-of-value, threat force, gun). Commission) ("sentencing fact" "element crime") affix namely, lead identity apart label, role, law's insistence treating alike, labeling difference? 71 here, concludes difference. Amendment's applies similarly both. analysis, conclusion. say, classically speaking, comes affix. jump conclusion treatment scenarios. fraught system; distorts practices; upsets settled relied designing systems. 72 Justices dissented opinions. 555-566 (BREYER, 549-550, 556-569 (KENNEDY, J.); 569-572 concurring judgment); 254, 264-272 (1999) Monge California, 524 721, 728-729 86-91 (REHNQUIST, J.). At repetition, considerations here. conclude again adverse inherent forms, risks impracticality, unfairness, strengthen. circumstance 74 create simple, pure nearly "charge offense" "determinate" system. 8-9 (1988). together, robbery. Robbery carry single years' imprisonment. And sentence—just centuries ago, everyone serious Lillquist, Puzzling Return Jury Sentencing: Misgivings About 82 621, 630 (2004). 75 Such assures intolerable systems punishments ways. dramatically ends being way, injustice Simple virtue simultaneously fails treat differently. commentators leveled themselves. Schulhofer, Assessing Process: Problem Is Uniformity, Disparity, Am. Crim. 833, 847 (1992) (arguing "most disparity, excessive uniformity" adjustments, elimination minimums, responsive differences). doubly "pure charge" permit departures extraordinary 76 Second, world fixed gives tremendous through charges. Prosecutors charge, sentences. Defendants, knowing chance lower front charges contest. Considering resolution norm, return unfairness. 1100-1101 (explaining hurts hearings, hearings have"; surrender issues plea; transferring prosecutors). 77 California recent movement. Payne Tennessee, 501 808, 820 (1991) ("With importance probation, opposed penological developed `indeterminate sentence,' incarceration courts"); Thompson, Navigating Hidden Obstacles Ex-Offender Reentry, Boston College 255, 267 (2004) ("In 1970s, switched length board, typically release prisoner. 78 vogue, criticized, so, producing race-based situated 315-316 sources). appeared depend "what ate breakfast" got, made 4-5 congressional expert studies indicating Commission promulgated, Second Circuit ranged imprisonment varied depending region, gender vary greatly "preponderance evidence," "beyond 91 ("Sentencing heard burden proof all" (1949))). Returning diminish "`reason'" 302 1872)). "ensur[e] [the] control" peopl[e,]" i. "in judiciary," 306, peopl[e]" duration formally derive verdict, itself. outcome protects safeguards defending. C 80 seems take. retaining structured differently, modifying conform dictates. Judges able depart downward present, argues, Kansas, enact amendments along lines oncoming train. 309-310 (2001); 3-7). exploring practice, assumptions depends. 81 subdivide complex defined include commonly type victim, injury, on. statute, modeled guidelines, (1) nature institution robbed, (2) of, brandishing (3) threat, (4) ordinary, serious, permanent threatening, (5) abduction, (6) restraint, (7) taking (8) drugs, (9) property loss, etc. 2B3.1 USSG). possibility highly calibrated form I-A, supra. suffers defects. prosecutor, controls punishment, thereby marching away from, toward, guideline goal: rough engage roughly conduct. artificial consequently unfair) resulting presentence investigation examines conduct, itself, known. 83 "complex prejudices trial, untenable position material phases Consider cocaine, specific 500 grams cocaine. murder, using machete. wants "supervisor," gang member. defendants, arguing, "I sell did, grams," kill him, machete," activity, supervisor" jury? 557-558 Monge, 729. tolerate kind (consider innocence, second-degree, first-degree, murder). rereading distinctions typical effort incorporate reach 84 really "States guilty" "stipulat[e] consen[t] factfinding." 310. problem, until recently, carve subsets new, Apprendi-required seeking Instead, proceed (likely prejudicial) elements. 85 deny choice; 310, 12. moment, (i. facts), concerns, done. alternative. 86 Apprendi-compliant juries whenever present: try found, bifurcated requiring run-of-the-mill costly, resources. Kozinski Gallagher, Death: Ultimate Run-On Sentence, Case Res. 13-15, (estimating around $1 million noncapital Tabak, Empirical Studies Can Affect Positively Politics Death Penalty, Cornell 1431, 1439-1440 (attributing proceedings). alleging evidentiary prejudice, difficulty obtaining information, mean complexity, cost, delay. V, infra. delay revert described I-C-1, 87 refers Office, two-jury workable Kansas. likelihood, workability uncomfortable hints, whose implications seem grasp. desirable minds some, attorneys "plea bargaining." 1150, 330 (reporting 1996, fewer 4% adjudicated trials, 5% 91% guilty). 310 (making applies). announce 90% once, 88 trial? truthful know. "double trial" cede defense. hurt "single-jury-decides-all" reluctant cocaine bag, small regardless, unaware confederate 1100 option, all"); 1151 trial"). 89 least, attached together overworked things equal, advocates acting constraints. time, weaken relation Rev., 845 evasion 20%-35% cases). embed plea-bargaining practices fear will), success practice. practice response "bargaining defendant," adding lawyers position, 312. or, matter, prosecutors. correspondence helps create. minimum, preventing prosecutor's acquiescence, undercut, nullify, offender's portion decides prove. Efforts tie new. embodied well-established preguidelines looking report, tailor fit engaged. century, (not innocence) made, juries, officers, boards. rested nonadversarial processes. base seek, uniform. 92 ways, radical law. surprising previously suggested unique jury-based impediment poses achieve systematic validity. D fourth option? Perhaps. might, rewrite attaching astronomically high part, consist absence 541-542 evade yet choice). impediments action rewrites achieve; 94 combinations variations upon, options. am variation shift (weakening punishment) lack expense, bargains "two-jury" compromises competing goals. reading impossible. 95 constitutional) imperative. According majority, rooted "longstanding jurisprudence," 301: "`an reason,'" 301-302 55). relies, reaches. attributes great weight, "unremarkable proposition" passes setting heavier penalties specifying triggered penalty, "a (characterizing statement 96 addressing. "statutes whereby, [a crime] intent, weapon, like, corresponding for" (though, "limited example," 302, 5). 51-52 (discussing enhanced-assault statutes, "assaults intent rob"). labeled proposition agree. 526-527 (11th 1849) necessary ingredient offence indictment" "there given, convicted"); T. Starkie, 1822) (the offence, facts; offence"). 97 writer, disputes provided 85, ("[W]ithin allowed, pronounces influenced shown mitigation, covered allegations indictment"); K. Stith Cabranes, Fear Judging: Courts (1998). modern indicates Usually, gleaned dispute hearing. employees prepared copy 79-80, 221, note 5. 315 law). 98 9A.40.030(3), 9A.20.021(1)(b) Modern purport channeling limiting (Thus, contrary arguments, 308-309, kidnapers be, committed.) 99 Historical speak done 19th Jones, 244 scholarship aware show ever raised resolved period framing"). death, limited, no, vary. 628-630. saw movement rehabilitative mode longer shorter ibid. ability guide designating allowing unusual considered. otherwise, ignore relies strike down. insists sources, "limited" written, 5, transplant discussions designed 100 history's silence legislatively term, modern, could, limits, "sentencing "elements crimes." 85-88. indicate determination. History preclude I, dual enhancing core affording many. 101 unfairness permitting decision? "tail" "wa[g] individual though change. 306 (majority suited cure. foresaw dealing problem; for. worse practically, although refuses 102 Historic then, counsel opposite. 103 overlooks institutional considerations. believed decide, proposition. created reform, systematically innocence now-guilty offender. spanned generation. led 314-318 Washington). imperfect perfect forbids adopt improve time. hamstrings discussed. 104 Now, posed outset. (in fact) instead crime? effectiveness (within limits) restrict radically respect, interprets advance, 105 impractical) changes process; processes transparency nonuniform, arbitrary, obstacles punishment; limitations legislatures' democratic decisions. Whatever faults cure legislation emerging discussion among, community, unchangeable Taken considerations, concerning consequences, reliance, Until now, undo efforts. dispels illusion. aside numerous Perhaps uncertain how. prosecutors, next, handle tomorrow's 107 about, guess next case: Does Guidelines? contain "elements" What, rules? use, reports, reflecting layers hearsay? Crawford 541 36, (clarifying requirement confrontation testimonial hearsay). Are reliable matter? 148, 153-157 (evidence acquitted sentencing). 389, 399-401 deal open-ended obviously experienced judge? 3B1.1 (requiring leader activity four "otherwise extensive" added)); 3D1.1-3D1.2 (highly "multiple count" rules); 1B1.3 (relevant rules). 108 Ordinarily, waits arise questions. affects prosecutions, prosecutions. prosecutions sentenced, tried, anew. consequence certainty, piecemeal; rather, call ramifications raised. view. 109 paucity regarding extendingApprendi surprise majority. 309. invalidate Compare 801 Goodine, 326 (CA1 Luciano, 146 (CA2 2002); DeSumma, 272 176 (CA3 2001); Kinter, 235 192 (CA4 2000); Randle, 304 373 (CA5 Helton, 349 295 (CA6 Johnson, 335 589 (CA7 curiam); Piggie, 316 789 (CA8 Toliver, 351 423 (CA9 Mendez-Zamora, 1013 (CA10 Sanchez, 269 1250 (CA11 Fields, 251 1041 (CADC Dilts, 336 158, 593 262 Lucas, 353 568, 548 712 Dean, C4-02-1225, 2003 WL 21321425 (Minn. Ct. 10, (unpublished map uncharted territory blazed unprecedented numbers staggering. On 31, 2004, 8,320 appeals issue. Memorandum Schlesinger, Administrative Courts, Library (June 2004) (available Clerk file). Between 27, 2000, whenApprendi decided, 272,191 court. Memorandum, governed vast

Category: 0