Document: 127 S. Ct. 856 (2007) John CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA. No. 05-6551. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 11, 2006. Decided January 22, 2007. *859 Peter Gold, San Francisco, CA, appointed by this court, for petitioner. Jeffrey M. Laurence, respondent. Counsel Record, Petitioner. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General California, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant General, Gerald A. Engler, Senior Donald E. De Nicola, Deputy Solicitor Stan Helfman, Supervising *860 Respondent. Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion Court. California's determinate sentencing law (DSL) assigns to trial judge, not jury, authority find facts that expose a defendant an elevated "upper term" sentence. The so found are neither inherent in jury's verdict nor embraced defendant's plea, and they need only be established preponderance evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. question presented is whether DSL, placing sentence-elevating factfinding within judge's province, violates right jury safeguarded Sixth Fourteenth Amendments. We hold it does. As Court's decisions instruct, Federal Constitution's jury-trial guarantee proscribes scheme allows judge impose sentence above statutory maximum based on fact, other than prior conviction, or admitted defendant. Apprendi New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000); Ring Arizona, 536 584, 122 2428, 153 556 (2002); Blakely Washington, 542 296, 124 2531, 159 403 (2004); States Booker, 543 220, 125 738, 160 621 (2005). "[T]he relevant `statutory maximum,'" has clarified, "is may after finding additional facts, but he without any findings." Blakely, U.S., at 303-304, 2531 (emphasis original). In petitioner's case, alone limited permissible 12 years. Additional however, yielded upper term 16 California Appeal affirmed harsher reverse disposition because four-year elevation judicial denied petitioner his trial. I A Petitioner Cunningham was tried convicted continuous sexual abuse child under age 14. Under offense punishable imprisonment lower 6 years, middle Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 288.5(a) (West 1999) (hereinafter Penal Code). further explained below, see infra, 861-863, DSL obliged 12-year unless one more aggravation. Based post-trial hearing, evidence six aggravating circumstances, among them, particular vulnerability Cunningham's victim, violent conduct, which indicated serious danger community. Tr. Sentencing (Aug. 1, 2003), App. 22.[1] mitigation, fact: had no record criminal *861 conduct. Ibid. Concluding aggravators outweighed sole mitigator, sentenced Id., 23. panel conviction sentence; dissented part, urging precedent precluded judge-determined increase A103501 (Apr. 18, 2005), 43-48; id., 48-50 (Jones, J., concurring part dissenting part).[2] review. S133971 (June 29, 2005) (en banc), 52. reasoned decision published nine days earlier, court considered here held survived Amendment inspection. People Black, 35 Cal. 4th 1238, 29 Rptr. 3d 740, 113 P.3d 534 20, 2005). B Enacted 1977, replaced indeterminate regime force some 60 See 1246, P.3d, 537; Cassou & Taugher, Determinate California: Numbers Game, 9 Pac. L.J. 5, 6-22 (1978) Taugher). regime, courts imposed open-ended prison terms (often year life), parole boardthe Adult Authoritydetermined amount time felon would ultimately spend prison. Cal.4th, 1256, 537, 544; re Roberts, 36 575, 588, n. 6, 31 458, 115 1121, 1129, (2005); Taugher 5-9. contrast, fixed most offenses, eliminated possibility early release parole. 3000 et seq. Supp.2006); 3 B. Witkin N. Epstein, Criminal Law 610, p. 809 (3d ed.2000); Brief Respondent 7.[3] Through lawmakers aimed promote uniform proportionate punishment. 1170(a)(1); 537. For including Cunningham's, implemented following manner. statute defining prescribes three precise imprisonmenta lower, middle, E.g., (a person "shall punished state 12, years"). also 1247, 538. 1170(b) Supp.2006) controls choice; provides "the shall order imposition term, there circumstances aggravation mitigation crime." "[C]ircumstances mitigation" determined *862 consideration several items: record; probation officer's report; statements submitted parties, victim's family; "and introduced hearing." directed State's Judicial Council[4] adopt Rules guiding "[i]mpose term." 1170.3(a)(2) 2004).[5] Restating 1170(b), Council's provide "[t]he selected justified mitigation." Rule 4.420(a). "Circumstances aggravation," as crisply defined Council, means "facts justify 4.405(d) added). Facts offense, evidence," 4.420(b),[6] must "stated orally record." 4.420(e). nonexhaustive list "[f]acts relating crime," 4.421(a),[7] defendant," 4.421(b),[8] "[a]ny statutorily declared 4.421(c). Beyond enumerated free consider `additional criteria reasonably related being made.'" 538 (quoting 4.408(a)). "A fact element used 4.420(d). sum, rules governing its application, direct start with move from when itself finds places factswhether offenderbeyond elements charged offense. ALITO maintains, circumstance all. view, policy judgment, even "subjective belief" regarding appropriate sentence, qualifies circumstance. Post, 879-880 (dissenting opinion). Rules, constantly refer "facts." just noted, define "circumstances aggravation" *863 added).[9] And unambiguously declare, 4.420(b), clear directive exception. Hall, 8 950, 957, 432, 883 P.2d 974, 978 (1994) ("Selection if ...." added)). While "[g]eneral objectives sentencing," 4.410(a), nowhere these cast authorize enumeration ... making discretionary does prohibit application made." 4.408(a). have read language unmoor anchor. line repeatedly referred facts. See, e.g., 544 ("The Legislature did identify all could added)); Wiley, 580, 587, 38 347, 889 541, 545 (1995) ("[T]rial assigned task deciding upon their determination crime, invariably requires numerous factual added internal quotation marks omitted)). It unsurprising, then, counsel, oral argument, acknowledged knew case gone found, solely basis judgment subjective belief. Oral Arg. 49-50. Notably, permits specified enhancements history crime. 667 Supp. 2006); 12022 1257, 545. Unlike indictment, underlying proved 1170.1(e); enhancement cannot do double duty; and, top that, enhanced term. 1170(b). Where permitted statute, use qualifying enhancer rather Ibid.; 4.420(c). II This Amendment, exposes greater potential *864 doubt, merely evidence. rule rooted longstanding common-law practice, explicit statement our recent. Jones States, 526 227, 119 1215, 143 311 (1999), we examined Amendment's historical doctrinal foundations, recognized operating otherwise punishment posed grave constitutional question. 239-252, 1215. construed issue avoid question, presaged decision, 15 months later, (2000). Charles possession firearm unlawful purpose, second-degree Jersey five ten years' imprisonment. 468, 2348. separate "hate crime" authorized "extended imprisonment: Ten twenty years "`[t]he committing crime acted purpose intimidate individual group individuals race, color, gender, handicap, religion, orientation ethnicity.'" 468-469, 2348 N.J. Stat. 2C:44-3(e) Supp.1999-2000)). Apprendi's therefore proscribed 471, Other Almendarez-Torres 523 224, 239-247, 118 1219, 140 350 (1998), Apprendi, "any increases penalty prescribed doubt." 490, Harris 545, 557-566, 2406, 524 (2002) (plurality opinion) ("Apprendi said extending been aggravated crimeand thus domain juryby those who framed Rights."). since reaffirmed applying subjecting death penalty, 602, 609, (2002), permitting excess "standard range" Washington's Reform Act, 304-305, (2004), triggering range then-mandatory Guidelines, 243-244, Booker bear closely case. Ralph Howard kidnapping firearm, class felony Washington law. 298-299, 2531. overall Act (Reform Act) important qualification: If reflected were receive 49 53 months. 299-300, require exceed standard she "`substantial compelling reasons justifying exceptional *865 sentence.'" Wash. Rev. 9.94A.120(2) (2000)). set out such based. clarified taken into account fixing rangei.e., jurycould count 90 months' imprisonment, range, deliberate cruelty. 300, Applying Blakely's unconstitutional. State endeavored distinguish ground "[u]nder guidelines, court's discretion result guilty verdict." O.T.2003, 02-1632, 15. rejected argument. Consequently, subject guarantee. 304-314, matter, explained, though outside 10-year felonies: "Our precedents make maximum' purposes .... words, findings. When inflicts allow, `which makes essential punishment,' exceeds proper authority." 303, original) 1 J. Bishop, Procedure 87, 55 (2d ed. 1872)). Because range53 months, 10 yearswas maximum. 304, additionally argued satisfied specify exclusive catalog might base departure range. argument well. "Whether depends (as here)," observed, "it remains sentence." 305, Further, irrelevant left depart discretion: judicially allow it," Ibid., Freddie intent distribute crack cocaine Guidelines. Booker's Guidelines 210 262 *866 undertaking factfinding. 233-234, 738. so, possessed drugs verdict. That boosted higher bottom 360 written STEVENS five-Member majority, impermissible Amendment. majority's "no distinction significance between procedures [Blakely]." 233, Both systems "mandatory impose[d] binding requirements judges." Ibid.[10] STEVENS' Court, bears emphasis, next expressed view disagreement Justices. He implicate advisory: "If currently advisory provisions recommended, required, selection sentences response differing sets never doubted exercise broad imposing Indeed, everyone agrees issues [this case] avoided entirely Congress omitted [federal Act] district judges.... exercises select specific deems relevant. "The written, advisory; mandatory (citations omitted). BREYER, garnering faced remedial turned assessment legislative intent: What alteration intended known vulnerable challenge? Three choices apparent: invalidate entirety 1984(SRA), comprehensively delineating federal system; preserve SRA, SRA established, attaching requirement increasing range; finally, render severing two 18 U.S.C. 3553(b)(1) 3742(e) (2000 IV). 246-249, *867 S.Ct. 738.[11] Recognizing "reasonable minds can, do, differ" majority concluded solution came closest congressional mark. 248-258, system described BREYER's judges longer tied But "take of" along goals 3553(a). 259, 264, 738.[12] Having severed 3742(e), provision appellate review scheme, supra, 867, installed, consistent sound administration justice, "reasonableness" 261, Without attempting elaborate discussion standard, observed: "Section 3553(a) effect, forth factors guide sentencing. Those turn will courts, past, determining reasonable." Ibid.[13] emphasized provisional character remedy. *868 speak last word" resides Congress, said: ball now lies Congress' court. National equipped devise install, long system, compatible Constitution, best justice." 265, instant light both parts opinion, earlier point. III 861-862. An guilt, qualify 862-863. Instead, depend discretely judge. accord therefore, statutes, ("[T]he defendant." original)). 862, bright-line rule: Except "[t]hat should end matter," 313, otherwise. examination intact. 1254-1261, 543-548. Black appears surface inspection tension Apprendi. "operation effect," said, "simply authorize[s] engage type traditionally incident range." 1254, 543. Therefore, concluded, violate principles Booker." 1270, 534, 554 (Kennard, dissenting) ("Nothing high opinions suggests constitutionality state's turns whether, words here, involves `that performed judge.'" 1253, 542)). conclusion maximum, rested considerations. First, given ample afforded warranting *869 "does represent effort shift proof (to jury) decided judge).... decide, guidance Such diminish traditional power jury." (footnote cautioned decide what support determine warranted shield decisions. if, instead, satisfied. 8, urged cause concern reduced penalties crimes over regime. 1256-1258, 544-545. 1271-1272, 555 ("This aspect differ significantly [the invalidated Blakely.]"); 865. Furthermore, unfair defendants, "cannot expect imposed" judges' keep 1258-1259, 545-546. noted distinguished aggravators)e.g., dangerous weapon, infliction great bodily injury, §§ 12022, 12022.7-.8 2000 Supp.2006)to indictment short, concerns Our decisions, leave room examination. Asking basic preserved, reserved very inquiry "bright-line rule" designed exclude. 307-308, 1260, 547 (stating, remarkably, draw bright line").[14] Ultimately, relied equation post-Booker system. level available selecting impose," "appears *870 comparable chosen permit sentencing." 1261, 548. same drives ALITO's dissent. post, 873 indistinguishable constitutionally significant respect approved [Booker]."). attempted comparison unavailing. 866-867, incompatible "[M]erely provisions," recommending requiring facts," Members agreed, "would Amendment." To remedy infirmity excised rendered mandatory, leaving place only. 245-246, 866-867. resemble view. "discretion adopted triads, ranges them. His instruction nothing less more, allowing Factfinding elevate plain, falls province employing beyond-a-reasonable-doubt bailiwick where lies. Nevertheless, rescue DSL's typing simply reasonableness constraint, equivalent constraint operative post-Booker. 548 ("Because factor include relevant, [DSL's] exists unreasonable."). Reasonableness, not, it, touchstone analysis. anticipated operates constraints delineated precedent, substitute constraints. allocates comforting, beside point, reasonable. recipe rendering toothless.[15] *871 summarize: Contrary holding, point authorizes withstand measurement against precedent.[16] IV adjustment [California's] court." 738; cf. 868. note modified wake retain They done calling juryeither proceedingto necessary sentence.[17] already employs juries manner enhancements. 863, 869. genuinely "to range,"[18] which, "everyone agrees," encounters shoal. follow paths sister alter observes limitations * stated, reversed remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered. *872 KENNEDY, whom BREYER joins, dissenting. ALITO, join full, well explains why continues wrong unfortunate direction cases 326-334, (2005) (BREYER, part); 314-324, (2004) (O'Connor, dissenting); 326-328, (KENNEDY, 523-554, 264-272, (1999) dissenting). fully sufficient show why, my respectful analysis holding mistaken. seem add brief, comment. incorrect. Yet principled rationale control central sphere concern, while reducing collateral, widespread harm justice corrections process resulting wooden, unyielding insistence expanding doctrine far boundaries. nature principle apply, offender, not. initial distinction. Compare 4.421(a) (Criminal Cases) 2006) (listing crime"), 4.421(b) defendant"). foreclose efforts. notes, experimented Ante, 858. reposed vast nonjudicial agency date felons. seems, untouched sought reform give downward unexplained reasons. too, considerable irony, guided discretion. holds today, forecloses option. suggested before, Constitution ought interpreted strike down aspects grant control. Judges legislators capacity develop standards, standards empaneled short permanent way. 314, (opinion O'Connor, J.); 326-327, J.) (explaining "[s]entencing guidelines prime example [the] collaborative process" legislatures). officials long-term commitment correctional systems. Juries officers professionals, legislature, encouraged participate ongoing improve various schemes country. large extent confined *873 These include, example, weapon used; violence employed; stated contraband involved; motivated status protected statute. matters disruption often definition event likely prosecution's On hand, regard exhibited convictions; cooperation noncooperation enforcement; remorse lack it; bearing background contribution little committed Berman Bibas, Making Sensible, 4 Ohio St. J.Crim. 37, 55-57 (2006). offender always clear, instances ensures problem categories difficult. suffers similar line-drawing considerations can take account. main retained systemic disruption. regretted today approach efforts general imposes. KENNEDY join, strikes sentencing; "reasonableness"; boththe explicitly, implicitlyrequire minimum unequivocally satisfies true respectfully (2000), followed wake, certain possesses increased findings affect made jury. contrary, later cases, consistently (such pre-Sentencing 1984 *874 system), own 481, 2348; 558, (2002).[1] rule, unanimously agreed purely likewise comport Writing Justices struck stated: relevant." 738.[2] vein, portion review.[3] blanket invalidation excising ed., IV), required applicable *875 existence condition violation. say, scope requirement." bound apply consult them addition, avoiding unwarranted disparities, providing restitution victims, reflecting seriousness promoting law, punishment, affording adequate deterrence, protecting public, effectively needed educational vocational training medical care. 260, 738 (citing IV)). advisory, reinstitute pre-Guidelines "well-established bar[red] discretion" statutes. Dorszynski 418 424, 443, 94 3042, 41 855 (1974). Rather, conditioned factors. ("Section unreasonable"). Although spell detail how proceed new seems permitsand, indeed, requiressentencing statutes generally wide ranges, each imposed. doing this, determinations about offenderand impossible imagine carry responsibilities determinations. relatively formal precise. (For proceeding drug involved kilograms loss caused mail fraud $2.5 million.) By informal imprecise. (A presentence report "a quantity drugs" loss.") systems, accordingly. Courts Appeals rely cases.[4] *876 believes her erroneous determination, challenge appeal. obtain justifies hardly regarded Thus, casesand, likelihood, good many casesin serve lesser appeals sustains simple illustrates Suppose counts mailings furtherance defraud. 1341 ranging up 50 (5 count). imposes allowed statute50 imprisonmentwithout identifying single justification lengthy Surely unreasonable sustained Suppose, alternatively, $1 million victims elderly people means, suppose findings, challenges appeal erroneous, validity fact. (1) "consult" account" legislatively guidelines; (2) subjects (3) meaningfully different upheld Booker. gives least much scheme. triads "enhancements"[5] *877 enacted achieve "in proportion discretion." 1170(a)(1) Supp.2006). "specified quite broad. base-term triad, "unless proven enhancement, "sentencing retains factors." exercising discretion, look 4.421 2006), mitigating 4.423, itemized society, punishing defendant, encouraging lead law-abiding life deterring future others conduct demonstrating consequences, preventing incarceration, securing achieving uniformity sentencing.[6] 4.410(a). unduly restricted factors, "are largely articulation decisions," Hernandez, 46 194, 205, 249 850, 757 1013, 1019, (1988) (in bank), overruled grounds, King, 5 59, 78, 19 851 27, 39, (1993) "additional 4.408(a); term").[7] *878 "`circumstances' `practically everything legitimate bearing' matter issue." Guevara, 88 86, 93, 151 511, 516 (1979); 4.410(b) policy, rules, case"). "judge's aggregate sentence" "experiences case." Stevens, 205 1452, 1457, 253 173, 177 (1988). belief length improper channeled outlined myriad criteria." schemelike "advisory Guidelines"does exercised reasonably. authoritatively construing statute,[8] 1170(b)'s "requirement exist 1255, original); 1257-1258, punishments contained rules"). Even "presumptive" reviewable discretionthat is, "standard" Cattaneo, 217 1577, 1587-1588, 266 710, 716 (1990). Moreover, like recognizes ability facts verdictin occurs during process." 1258, Despite similarities Guidelines" *879 nevertheless runs afoul follows: apart "statutory maximum" "Apprendi's rule," 308, flawed. thing, case-specific, adjudicative "fact" opposed consideration) before "circumstanc[e] added), "criteria empowered full panoply regimesthe reaffirmed. explicitly account, restitution, uniformity, 4.410, appropriateness Cal.Rptr., 177, final reasonable.[9] Policy "reflected 303 deleted), then plainly apply.[10] *880 distinguishable previously Guidelines," bounded review, (albeit explicitly) judges. necessarily supposes absence (Recall hypothetical posited citing offender.) although labeled "advisory," real across fact.[11] downplays Booker-style "reasonableness... constraints." 870 begs "Sixth answered stands proposition relies heavily admonition fails recognize understood represents onerous bare return *881 deserving imagined. (Whether (probation, IV)) (also probation, Commission, Manual 2B1.1 Table (Nov.2006)) present purposes; sentence.) "solely deleted). anticipates govern explicit, (at now) implicit, dispositive. Unless prepared overrule affirm Appeal. NOTES [1] victim listed 4.421(a)(3) Rule), "relating Violent indicating society 4.421(b)(1) [2] addition challenge, disputed substance abused position trust (because overlapped finding). warranted, concluding properly "reasonably probable" absent 43-46; 51 (May 4, 2005, modifying denying rehearing). [3] Murder offenses still 7, 2. 190 [4] Council includes chief another sitting Appeal, Superior Courts, nonvoting members. Const., Art. 6(a) grants authority, inter alia, administration, practice procedure, perform functions statute." 6(d). [5] amended amendments technical changes, none material us. text parties principal authorities rely. [6] 4.406(b), [7] 4.421(a)(1) [t]he violence, harm, threat acts disclosing degree cruelty, viciousness, callousness."). [8] engaged indicates society."). [9] also, 4.420(b) outweigh 4.420(e) (court concise ultimate deemed constitute [10] context, resembles pre-Booker ways did: key states facts" rests, 876-877 (ALITO, (characterizing sentencing). [11] Title mandated "an kind, degree, adequately Commission formulating guidelines." Section determine, correctly applied 3742(e)(2), fell provided reasons, 3553(b) departure, reasonable, 3742(e)(3). [12] instructs characteristics kinds available," issued Commission. 3553(a)(1), (3)-(5). Avoidance respond. 3553(a)(6)-(7). enumeration, calls sufficient, necessary" "reflect offense," "promote law," "provide "afford deterrence conduct," "protect public training, care, treatment effective manner." 3553(a)(2). [13] call elaboration check post-Booker, granted raising questions trained matter: Claiborne ___ ___, 551, 166 406 (cert. granted, Nov. 3, Rita 855, (cert.granted, 2006). Claiborne, extraordinary attend varying substantially presumption within-Guidelines regard, essentially 873-878. maintain position, dissent previews, benefit briefing "reasonableness review," works. 880-881. matter. [14] urges concerning 872 itself, leaves bifurcated proposes. ("[A]ny [15] that. reads override academic entire first itself. There revision essayed Grounded notion "necessarily anticipates" aired Term Claiborne. 13. forecast responses continuing vitality [16] amici argue whatever "construction" authoritative. 33; Hawaii al. Amici Curiae 17, 29. disagree. modify align precedent. 1273, 555-556 endeavor interpretation deference. [17] altered Alaska, Kansas, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington. Alaska 12.55.155(f), 12.55.125(c) Ariz.Rev.Stat. 13-702.01 Kan. §§21-4716(b), 21-4718(b) (2005 Supp.); Minn.Stat. 244.10, subd. N.C. Gen. 15A-1340.16(a1) (Lexis 2005); 2005 Ore. Sess. Laws, ch. 463, 3(1), 4(1); Rev.Code 9.94A.535, 9.94A.537 Colorado interim solution. Lopez People, 713, (Colo.2005) banc). Stemen Wilhelm, Finding Jury: Legislative Responses Fed. 7 (Oct.2005) (majority affected systems). [18] Ind.Code 35-50-2-1.3(a) Tenn.Code 40-35-210(c) Supp.). recognition surprising since, Judge McConnell pointed out, "fully sentencing... [that was] adopted" "prevailed Founding until enactment anyone ever suggesting conflict McConnell, Mess, 83 Denver U.L.Rev. 665, 679 original First variety Apr. 30, 1790, 9, 2, 112 (crime misprision treason exceeding seven fine $1,000); $500); 15, 115-116 falsifying records $5,000, whipping 39 stripes); Little Chen, Lost History Petition Rehearing, 17 Rep. 69 (2004). four course, disagree "[h]istory `right trial' facts." 328, part). dissenters disagreed severability analysis, suggest structure recognizedas opinionthat "[i]f Every address Kilby, 443 F.3d 1135, 1141 (C.A.9 Cooper, 437 324, 330 (C.A.3 Vaughn, 430 518, 525-526 (C.A.2 Morris, 429 65, 72 (C.A.4 Price, 771, 788 (C.A.7 Magallanez, 408 672, 684-685 (C.A.10 Pirani, 543, (C.A.8 banc); Yagar, 404 967, 972 (C.A.6 Mares, 402 519, (C.A.5 Duncan, 400 1297, 1304-1305 (C.A.11 Antonakopoulos, 399 68, 74 (C.A.1 enhancements, onto base-triad ante, 863-864, pleaded policies directs consider, things, afford protect public. "In adopting proposals weights, terms. `an listing mandate "rules judge" [§ 1170.3] purport limit assist discretion.' (Judicial Cal., Advisory Com. Rep., Reporting System (1977) 6.) `Any attempt weighting infringement court.' (Id., 8.) `The substantive section 1170(a)(1), court; guide, compel, 11.)" 544, 11. notes defer construction jurisprudence. 871, 16. exposition authoritative Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684, 691, 95 1881, 44 508 (1975) ("[S]tate expositors [and] constructions except extreme circumstances"); Wainwright Goode, 464 84, 104 378, 78 187 (1983) (per curiam) views highest courts"); 603, (recognizing Arizona authoritative). brief reason mean selecting" triad impose. 32. counsel uptick community, "circumstance supporting judge-found, case-specific 32-40. itemize concrete label 4.423 lists exhaustive, impair Rules' "[c]ircumstances clearly meant cover types crime- defendant-specific immediately following; excludes conducive trial-type proof. recognize, mutually exclusive. reach conclusion, "previe[w] `reasonableness review,' works," 13, perhaps prejudge forthcoming 870-871, modest. map murky contours landscape conclude something. empty exercise, inevitably judge-found unreasonable. One embrace unreasonableness accept caseand endorsement Booker meaningful difference Guidelines." both,

Category: 0