Opinion ID: 169018
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Apprendi Exception for Prior Convictions

Text: 7 The Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment requires the government to submit to a jury facts which increase a crime's penalty beyond the statutory maximum to avoid a Sixth Amendment violation. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. Excepted from this rule is judicial fact-finding used solely to establish a prior conviction. Id. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348. To determine the fact of prior conviction, a sentencing court may examine the language of the statute of conviction, the terms of the charging document, the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant . . ., or to some comparable judicial record of this information. United States v. Taylor, 413 F.3d 1146, 1157 (10th Cir.2005) (internal quotations omitted). 8 Holyfield contends recent decisions by the Supreme Court portend the elimination of Apprendi's prior conviction exception, see Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26 n. 5, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005); see also id. at 27, 125 S.Ct. 1254 (Thomas, J., concurring) (a majority of the Court now recognizes [the prior conviction rule] was wrongly decided.). While there may be some truth to Holyfield's contention, we have repeatedly rejected these types of challenges. Unless and until the Supreme Court determines otherwise, we will continue to follow applicable precedent. United States v. Moore, 401 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Harris, 447 F.3d 1300, 1303 n. 1 (10th Cir.2006) (same). 9 But even if the Apprendi exception for prior convictions was modified by the Supreme Court, Holyfield's appeal would still fail. The district court's fact-finding regarding the prior convictions did not raise Holyfield's sentence beyond the statutory maximum. 10