Opinion ID: 2620565
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Alleyne Decision

Text: When Harakaly commenced this appeal, his arguments were squarely foreclosed by Supreme Court and First Circuit precedent. In Apprendi, the Supreme Court held 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. However, in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), the Supreme Court distinguished facts that increase a sentence beyond a statutory maximum from facts that trigger or increase a mandatory minimum sentence. The Court held that, where a defendant had been convicted of carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking offense, the district court did not err by making a factual finding that he had brandished the weapon, thus exposing him to a heightened mandatory minimum sentence. Id. at 568. The Court stated that brandishing was a sentencing factor, rather than an element of the offense, that need not be alleged in the indictment, submitted to the jury, or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Under Harris, a district court could make drugquantity determinations, by a preponderance of the evidence, that triggered or increased mandatory minimum sentences. See, e.g., United States v. Goodine, 326 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2003). -9- However, after Harakaly filed his opening brief on appeal, but before the government filed its brief, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Alleyne. Overruling Harris, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury requires that the Apprendi doctrine apply equally to facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence.3 See 133 S. Ct. at 2155. Therefore, Harakaly's opening argument -- that this court should reconsider its earlier cases holding that facts that increase the mandatory minimum are sentencing factors, rather than elements of the crime, that may be found by the court by a preponderance of the evidence -- has since been settled in his favor by the Supreme Court.4