Opinion ID: 842329
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: mcmillan v. pennsylvania

Text: There is considerable precedent from the United States Supreme Court regarding judicial modification of sentences using facts found by a judge after a jury's verdict. These judge-determined facts are referred to as sentencing factors. In McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2411 (U.S.Pa.1986) [9] the Court addressed the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's mandatory minimum sentencing act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. 9712. That act provided for a mandatory minimum sentence for certain felonies if the sentencing judge found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant `visibly possessed a firearm' during the commission of the offense. McMillan, 477 U.S. at 81, 106 S.Ct. 2411. The United States Supreme Court found that the visible-possession requirement was a mere sentencing factor that did not change the prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 86-88, 106 S.Ct. 2411. It made another important point in McMillan: There are constitutional limitations on how far a state may go in reducing the factual support needed to prove a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court paid special attention to the fact that 42 Pa Cons. Stat. 9712 did not increase the maximum penalty faced by the defendant: Section 9712 neither alters the maximum penalty for the crime committed nor creates a separate offense calling for a separate penalty; it operates solely to limit the sentencing court's discretion in selecting a penalty within the range already available to it without the special finding of visible possession of a firearm. [ McMillan, 477 U.S. at 87-88, 106 S.Ct. 2411.]