Opinion ID: 177345
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Giving All Due AEDPA Deference, What is the Apprendi Maximum for Each Petitioner?

Text: My colleagues join the New York Court of Appeals in reasoning that because life imprisonment is the highest sentence to which a defendant is exposed under the PFO statute, life imprisonment is the maximum sentence for Apprendi purposes. [6] If my colleagues are correct that life imprisonment is the maximum sentence to which the petitioners were subject for Apprendi purposes, then I would agree that the petitions must be denied. But I do not agree. As my colleagues' own description of Blakely indicates, [7] precisely the same argument was made in Blakely and rejected by the Supreme Court, which stated: The State nevertheless contends that there was no Apprendi violation because the relevant statutory maximum is not 53 months, but the 10-year maximum for class B felonies in § 9A.20.021(1)(b). It observes that no exceptional sentence may exceed that limit. See § 9.94A.420. Our precedents make clear, however, that the statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. Blakely, 542 U.S. at 303, 124 S.Ct. 2531. That the Court directly ruled on this issue is underlined by Justice O'Connor's dissent. Id. at 318, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (Under the majority's approach, any fact that increases the upper bound on a judge's sentencing discretion is an element of the offense.) (O'Connor, J., dissenting). Each petitioner concedes that he was eligible for, subject to, etc., a Class A-I sentence solely because of his prior multiple felonies. Each also argues that without the findings of facts as to which the prosecution bore the burden of proof and that were not found by the jury (discussed in the next subsection), he had to be sentenced within a range carrying a lower maximum. No party disputes the existence of a choice between sentencing within a range with a lower maximum and sentencing to a Class A-I term. Blakely is therefore directly on point. Cunningham reaffirmed Blakely in this respect. 549 U.S. at 288-89, 127 S.Ct. 856 (using Blakely 's definition of the Apprendi maximum to find California's sentencing scheme unconstitutional). Cunningham, moreover, involved non-continuous sentences, as is the case in Morris's petition. In that regard, the Cunningham decision directly contradicts the statement in Footnote 12 of my colleagues' opinion that the Supreme Court has never suggested that non-continuous schemes raise Sixth Amendment concerns. Maj. op. 89. In the very heart of the Court's holding, it stated: 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. Factfinding to elevate a sentence from 12 to 16 years, our decisions make plain, falls within the province of the jury employing a beyond-areasonable-doubt standard, not the bailiwick of a judge determining where the preponderance of the evidence lies. Cunningham, 549 U.S. at 292, 127 S.Ct. 856. Similarly, in Morris's case, the sentencing judge had to choose between two ranges: 1.5 to 4 years and 15 years to lifean eleven-year gap between the maximum in the lower range and the minimum in the higher range. Cunningham is, therefore, also directly on point. The reasoning adopted by my colleagues with respect to analyzing the maximum sentence for Apprendi purposes has thus been expressly rejected by the Supreme Court, and AEDPA deference is inapplicable. See Dolphy v. Mantello, 552 F.3d 236, 238 (2d Cir.2009) (AEDPA deference not applicable where state court's adjudication was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Apprendi maximum for each petitioner is the maximum second felony offender sentence for their crime of conviction. That maximum in each case is less than life imprisonment.