Opinion ID: 2584137
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Supreme Court's Recent Decision in Cunningham

Text: {20} Lopez has been put into question by the United States Supreme Court's recent case of Cunningham, which overturned Black I. [7] See Cunningham, ___ U.S. at ___, 127 S.Ct. at 871. The Supreme Court in Cunningham held that allowing a judge to impose an upper term sentence on a finding of aggravating circumstances was unconstitutional because it bypassed the jury's role as factfinder. See id. In essence, because aggravating circumstances depend on facts found discretely and solely by the judge . . ., the middle term prescribed in California's statutes, not the upper term, is the relevant statutory maximum. Id. at 868. The Supreme Court reiterated that this was a bright-line rule, id., and thought it remarkabl[e] that Black I believed it was not, id. at 869. According to the Court, `[t]hat should be the end of the matter.' Id. at 868 (quoting Blakely, 542 U.S. at 313, 124 S.Ct. 2531) (alteration in original). Finally, Cunningham soundly rejected California's argument that the Supreme Court should defer to its construction of state law: The Black I court did not modify California law so as to align it with this Court's Sixth Amendment precedent. Rather, it construed this Court's decisions in an endeavor to render them consistent with California law. The Black I court's interpretation of federal constitutional law plainly does not qualify for this Court's deference. Id., ___ U.S. at ___, 127 S.Ct. at 871 n. 16 (citation omitted). {21} Thus, the Supreme Court rejected the California Supreme Court's effort to interpret its statute as an actual range in which the judge could choose a sentence: Under California's system, judges are not free to exercise their discretion to select a specific sentence within a defined range. California's Legislature has adopted sentencing triads, three fixed sentences with no ranges between them. Cunningham's sentencing judge had no discretion to select a sentence within a range of 6 to 16 years. His instruction was to select 12 years, nothing less and nothing more, unless he found facts allowing the imposition of a sentence of 6 or 16 years. Id., ___ U.S. at ___, 127 S.Ct. at 870 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).