Opinion ID: 1619733
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Apprendi and Blakely and Sentencing

Text: The Supreme Court's decisions in Apprendi and Blakely have significantly affected criminal sentencing procedure at both the state and federal levels. In 2000, the Court held in Apprendi that [o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348. Four years later, the Court applied Apprendi in examining a sentence imposed upon the defendant's guilty plea. Blakely, 542 U.S. at 301, 124 S.Ct. 2531. Addressing the State's claim that the sentence fell within the statutory maximum, the Court stated the following: 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. In other words, the relevant statutory maximum is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may impose without any additional findings. When a judge inflicts punishment that the jury's verdict alone does not allow, the jury has not found all the facts which the law makes essential to the punishment, and the judge exceeds his proper authority. Id. at 303-04, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (citations omitted). The Supreme Court recently applied the principles of Apprendi and Blakely to a determinate sentencing statute. Cunningham v. California, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856 (2007). California's sentencing scheme granted trial courts discretion to sentence defendants to one of three terms of years. The middle term was the designated default, but the trial court could impose the upper term upon its own finding of aggravating factors that the Supreme Court concluded were neither inherent in the jury's verdict nor embraced by the defendant's plea. Id. at 860. Concluding that the middle term constituted the statutory maximum, the Court held that [b]ecause the [statute] allocates to judges the sole authority to find facts permitting the imposition of an upper term sentence, the system violates the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 859. With these three decisions, the Court effectively eliminated most judicial factfinding that would increase a sentence. Except for the fact of a prior conviction, a judge may not find any fact that exposes a defendant to a sentence exceeding the relevant statutory maximum, unless that fact inheres in the verdict, the defendant waives the right to a jury finding, or the defendant admits the fact. Under Apprendi, Blakely, and Cunningham, such sentence-elevating facts must be found by a jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt.