Legal Document

129 S. Ct. 711 (2009) OREGON, Petitioner, v. Thomas Eugene ICE. No. 07-901. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 14, 2008. Decided January 2009. *714 Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, Salem, OR, for petitioner. Ernest G. Lannet, appointed by this Court, respondent. Hardy Myers, Attorney General Oregon, Peter Shepherd, Deputy Counsel Record, Douglas Petrina, Assistant Petitioner. Gartlan, Chief Defender, Rebecca A. Duncan, Senior Public Office Defense Services, Appellate Division, Respondent. Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion Court. This case concerns scope Sixth Amendment's jury-trial guarantee, as construed in Apprendi New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), and Blakely Washington, 542 296, 124 2531, 159 403 (2004). Those decisions are rooted historic jury functiondetermining whether prosecution has proved each element an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. They hold that it is within jury's province to determine any fact (other than existence prior conviction) increases maximum punishment authorized particular offense. Thus far, not extended line offense-specific context supplied grounding decisions. The question here presented sentencing function which traditionally played no part: When defendant been tried convicted multiple offenses, involving discrete prescriptions, does Amendment mandate determination declared necessary imposition consecutive, lieu concurrent, sentences? Most States continue common-law tradition: entrust judges' unfettered discretion decision sentences offenses shall be served consecutively or concurrently. In some States, presumed run consecutively, but judges may order concurrent upon finding cause therefor. Other including constrain requiring them find certain facts before imposing rather sentences. It undisputed proceed on first two tracks without transgressing Amendment. sole issue dispute, then, Amendment, Blakely, precludes mode proceeding chosen Oregon several her sister We hold, light *715 historical practice authority over administration their criminal justice systems, exclude Oregon's choice. I A State laws, just observed, prescribe variety approaches defendant's distinct concurrently consecutively. might have followed prevailing pattern placing trial court's all,[1] almost all,[2] circumstances. Instead, other adopted more restrained approach: they provide judicial discretion, its exercise. these impose consecutive sentences, must make predicate findings.[3] controlling statute provides unless judge finds statutorily described facts. Ore.Rev.Stat. § 137.123(1) (2007). most cases, such permits requirethe sentences.[4] Specifically, "[i]f simultaneously sentenced do arise from same continuous uninterrupted course conduct." 137.123(2). If conduct, still if she either: "(a) That ... was indication willingness commit one offense; "(b) caused created risk causing greater qualitatively different loss, injury harm victim victim...." 137.123(5). B On occasions between December 1996 July 1997, respondent Ice entered apartment complex he managed sexually assaulted 11-year-old girl. 343 Ore. 248, 250, 170 P.3d 1049, 1050 An six crimes. For incidents, found him guilty first-degree burglary entering with intent sexual abuse; assault touching victim's vagina; breasts. Ibid. At sentencing, made findings, pursuant 137.123, permitted First, burglaries constituted "separate incident[s]." Id., at 255, P.3d, 1053 (internal quotation marks omitted). Based finding, had, exercised, *716 Ibid.; see Second, court vagina met statutory criteria set forth 137.123(5): displayed "willingness offense" during episode, his conduct "caused greater, injury, victim." 253, 1051 These findings gave sentence those associated sentence. elected so. ordered, however, breasts total, 340 months' imprisonment. App. 46-87.[5] appealed relevant part, argued had right jury, judge, appellate affirmed judgment opinion. 178 Ore.App. 415, 39 291 (2001). granted Ice's petition review reversed, 4 2. Ore., 1050.[6] majority's view, rule applied, because increased "the quantum punishment" imposed. 265, 1058. dissenting justices concluded "[n]either holding nor reasoning support[ed] extending sentencing." 267, 1059 (opinion Kistler, J.). high courts divided governs decisions.[7] resolve question. 552 ___, 128 1657, 353 (2008). II Federal Constitution's guarantee assigns exclusive province. Under held Apprendi, "any penalty crime prescribed submitted doubt." U.S., 490, 2348. applied Apprendi's subjecting death penalty, Ring Arizona, 536 584, 602, 609, 122 2428, 153 556 (2002), allowing exceeding "standard" range Washington's system, 304-305, prompting elevated under then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines, Booker, 543 220, 244, 125 738, 160 621 (2005). *717 recently, Cunningham California, 549 270, 127 856, 166 856 (2007), we permitting "upper term" California's determinate law. All involved crime, notas herefor character committed times. Our application honor "longstanding practice" rooted. Cunningham, 281, 856. rule's animating principle preservation role bulwark accused alleged See 477, Guided principle, our opinions clear countenance legislative encroachment traditional domain. id., 497, accordingly considered understood domain who framed Bill Rights." Harris 545, 557, 2406, 524 (2002) (plurality opinion). undertaking inquiry, remain cognizant system among basic sovereign prerogatives retain. See, e.g., Patterson York, 432 197, 201, 97 2319, 53 281 (1977). twin considerationshistorical respect state sovereigntycounsel against "extends down centuries into common law." specification regime administering long prerogative legislatures. record demonstrates Rather, choice rested exclusively judge. 1 J. Bishop, Criminal Law 636, pp. 649-650 (2d ed.1858) ("[W]hen there convictions, remains pronounced; direct, succeeding period imprisonment commence termination next preceding."); Campbell, 9:22, p. 425 (3d ed.2004) ("Firmly law selection either rests judges."). so England founding Nation,[8] early American States.[9] "has quarrel *718 [this account] practices through ages." Brief Respondent 32. further indicates judge's practice.[10] history, reforms regarding implicate core prompted Apprendi. There historically threat accused. defendantwho faced defaulthas modern legislatures protections meant temper harshness practice. answer that, argues, "he `entitled' to" absent requires. 43. Legislature deviated tradition" enacted hinges imported. 33. As described, constitutional informed Williams Florida, 399 78, 98-100, 90 1893, 26 446 (1970). therefore suggests, federal attaches every contemporary state-law "entitlement" findings. similar reasons, heavily relies, control case. stated earlier, fell 274, assignment implicates concern: attempt "remove [province the] jury" warrant specific 2348 occasion consider appropriate inquiry when erosion stake. thus impede conclusion concern inapplicable hand, too restriction judge-found States' interest development penal dominion area, also counsel extension requests. Beyond question, systems lies status. Patterson, 2319 ("It goes saying preventing dealing much business Government."). recognized laboratories *719 devising solutions difficult legal problems. Co. Liebmann, 285 262, 311, 52 371, 76 747 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). should diminish impelling reason bears emphasis innovations like seek rein possessed will. Limiting serves "salutary objectives" promoting proportionate gravity offense," 308, reducing disparities length, 6 W. LaFave, Israel, N. King, & O. Kerr, Procedure 26.3(f) ed.2007). agree scheme making rule, exception, encounters shoal. To hem equally choose would scant sense. Neither traditions compel straitjacketing manner. Further, unclear how many initiatives fall proposed expansion 17 observed amici brief supporting currently permit determinations length incarceration. Trial often about nature determining, example, supervised release following service prison sentence; required attendance drug rehabilitation programs terms community service; fines orders restitution. Indiana et al. Amici Curiae 11. Intruding choices accoutrements surely cut loose moorings. Moreover, seeks administer. could substantially prejudice defense guilt phase trial. result, bifurcated trifurcated trials prove necessary. 14-15. will burden Nation's genuine affront instruction. recognize initiative harmony ideals. But previously emphasized, "structural democratic constraints exist discourage from" pernicious manipulation rules articulate. n. 16, event, confronted manipulation, "we [legislative measure] Court's decisions." 491, us today raises concern. III Members warned "wooden, unyielding insistence expanding doctrine far boundaries." 295, (Kennedy, best honored "principled rationale" applies cases "within central sphere concern." disposition todayupholding belonged juryis faithful aim. *720 * reasons stated, remanded proceedings inconsistent ordered. SCALIA, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, SOUTER, THOMAS join, dissenting. clear: Any factother convictionthat admitted doubt jury. allows juries defendants longer directly contradicts what eight years ago reaffirmed times since. justification virtual copy dissents cases. imposed factual harms" acts produced convictions. 268, 1060 (2007) (Kistler, can "essential 232, "should end matter." 313, attempts distinguish only individual total defendant. cannot understand why strange exception treasured distinctive history factfinding (of course) logic supports odd rule. taken pains reject artificial limitations subject guarantee. turns consequences attached fact, formal definition crime. Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684, 698, 95 1881, 44 508 (1975). More rejected contention "aggravating circumstances" qualify did "If," said, "a makes increase contingent factno matter labels itmust (2002). bare three ago, rejecting determining Guidelines again pragmatic, practical, nonformalistic mistaken: "find `"any fact"' essential [a defendant's] punishment." supra, 738 (quoting 301). leaves room formalistic distinction bearing number serve count (subject Apprendi) (now Apprendi). *721 "greater 494, hitherto note reality less severe sanction sentence." Ralston Robinson, 454 216, 9, 102 233, 70 345 (1981) (emphasis deleted). alters single consequence important noncapital defendants: date prison. defendants, difference verdict innocence count: Two 10-year circumstances support distinction-without-a-difference, puts forward (the very same) arguments were Here, entirely irrelevant ante, 717-718; lesser (within maximum) problem exposes known after verdict: "In says punish 10 40 years, burglar knows risking jail." 309, 2531. analysis where both guilt; burglar-rapist precisely Apprendi: What happens breaks discretionary permits showing extraordinary facts? "is entitled lighter "and Amendment[,] entitlement jury." protests "encroachment" "erosion" terms. Ante, 718-719. Alas, argument diminished, dissent contended, up judges, juries, be. 556, 559, BREYER, acknowledged 19th century leave limits fixed But, conditions higher fact. diminished depend removed determination. 482-483, true here. then observes results readily achieved, instead, default Undoubtedly (or even required) proves additional satisfaction. ibid. *722 permissibility alternative means achieving obviously argument) raised squarely case: "If escape showing, war veteran, veteran status neither exposing deprivation liberty according statute, stigma accompanying alone. Core burden-of-proof requirements scheme." Ultimately, abandons effort analytic decision, thinks "`salutary objectives'" scheme. 719. "Limiting discretion," told, promotes offense, reduces length. protection turn good policy, legislature compassionate heart adopting it. proof given, all policymakinggood bad, heartless compassionate work confines reality. Of probably exaggerates benign effect scheme, suggested bar's vigorous objection, evidenced participation National Association Lawyers amicus favor Even exaggeration replay responded: "It hard believe somehow duped arguing wrong side." 312, 2531 Finally, summons parade horribles assembled Oregon. notes "[t]rial facts" connection incarceration," worries ability release, service, entry program, called courses reduce augment imposes, problem. last horrible invokes prospect prejudicing merits another déjà vu rejeté; watched past before, Apprendi-related opinions, saluted. 336-337, (BREYER, dissenting); (same). peroration "[t]he `principled rationale' `within concern.'" 719 (KENNEDY, dissenting)). *723 concern" alone justifies. authorize sentence, if, term, requirement satisfied." 290, Court). doubling tripling jail time fact-dependent meet description, nothing does. And rationale": reliance difference, repeated exhumation dead buried seems me epitome opposite. Today's muddies waters, gives willing stand interpretation NOTES [1] E.g., Connecticut (Conn. Gen.Stat. 53a-37 (2005)); Idaho (Idaho Code 18-308 (Lexis 2004)); Nebraska (Neb.Rev.Stat. 29-2204 (1995)). generally Amicus (listing laws nine States). [2] Florida (Fla. Stat. 921.16 (2007)); Kansas (Kan. Ann. 21-4608 (2007));Mississippi (Miss.Code 99-19-21 (2007)). [3] Maine (Me.Rev.Stat. Ann., Tit. 17-A, 1256 (2006); Keene, 2007 ME 84, 927 A.2d 398); Tennessee (Tenn.Code 40-35-115(b) Allen, 259 S.W.3d 671 (Tenn.2008)); (Ore.Rev. 137.123 [4] Sentences "[w]hen while incarcerated." 137.123(3). [5] Had ordered months. 68, 75. [6] Preliminarily, ruled unanimously consecutive-sentencing constitute elements safeguarded Constitution violated. 261-262, 1056 [7] Compare, People Wagener, 196 Ill. 269, 283-286, 256 Dec. 550, 752 N.E.2d 430, 440-442 (2001) (holding apply); A.2d, 405-408 (same); Foster, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 470 applicable). [8] King Wilkes, 19 How. Tr. 1075, 1132-1136 (K.B.1769); Lee Walker, [1985] Q.B. 1191, 1201 (1984) ("[T]he High always inherent jurisdiction power imprison."). [9] Russell Commonwealth, 7 Serg. Rawle 489, 490 (Pa. 1882) (Judicial Courts State," "warranted practice, authority."); re Walsh, 37 Neb. 454, 456, 55 N.W. 1076 (1893) great weight proposition . cumulative sentences."); Breton, 93 Me. 39, 42, 125, 126 (1899) Howard 75 F. 986, 993 (C.A.6 1896) ("[A] denies conviction indictments except idle ceremony."). [10] Queen Cutbush, 2 L.R.Q.B. 379, 382, Cox Crim. Cas. 492 (1867) ("[R]ight require [that] man separate offences, due offence, merely already imprisoned offence."); (noting "so living memory back").

Classification Label: 0