Opinion ID: 845997
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the united states supreme court's precedent regarding the statutory maximum [11]

Text: In McMillan v. Pennsylvania , [12] the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's mandatory minimum sentencing act, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. 9712 (1982). It found that the act did not change the prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 86-88, 106 S.Ct. 2411, 91 L.Ed.2d 67 (1986). It was careful to point out, however, that there are constitutional limits on how far a state may go in defining away the facts necessary to prove a criminal offense. Specifically, the Court relied on the fact that the Pennsylvania act did not increase the maximum penalty faced by a defendant. Id. at 87-88, 106 S.Ct. 2411. The Supreme Court expanded on this point in five subsequent cases: Jones v. United States , [13] Apprendi v. New Jersey , [14] Ring v. Arizona, [15] Blakely, and United States v. Booker. [16] I refer to these cases as the Blakely cases. The Blakely cases focused primarily on the statutory maximum. Blakely and Booker made clear that this phrase did not refer to the absolute maximum sentence provided by statute. Instead, the Supreme Court defined the statutory maximum as the maximum sentence that can be imposed without any judicial fact-finding: 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. [ Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303-304, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004) (emphasis in original; citations omitted).] The Blakely cases reiterated a central holding: Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. [ United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 244, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).]