56 Cited authorities

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (2000) Cited 26,625 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding 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”
Blakely v. Washington
542 U.S. 296 (2004) Cited 16,610 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[w]hen 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”
Alleyne v. United States
570 U.S. 99 (2013) Cited 8,120 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime must be submitted to a jury
Mathis v. United States
136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) Cited 4,378 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the categorical approach's reliance upon elements rather than means "does not change when a statute happens to list possible alternative means of commission"
Cunningham v. California
549 U.S. 270 (2007) Cited 4,291 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
523 U.S. 224 (1998) Cited 6,531 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment
Ring v. Arizona
536 U.S. 584 (2002) Cited 4,998 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[i]f a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt”
Shepard v. U.S.
544 U.S. 13 (2005) Cited 4,221 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that when conducting certain inquires related to prior convictions courts are limited to certain judicial record evidence-charging instruments, terms of a plea agreement, or "transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant, or to some comparable judicial record"
Oregon v. Ice
555 U.S. 160 (2009) Cited 1,251 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that Apprendi and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 do not apply to findings of fact necessary for the imposition of consecutive sentences
Hurst v. Florida
577 U.S. 92 (2016) Cited 960 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding Florida's former death penalty sentencing scheme unconstitutional because "[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death"
Section 2929.14 - [Effective 6/12/2024] Definite prison terms
Ohio Rev. Code § 2929.14 Cited 12,246 times 1 Legal Analyses
Describing the penalty for a felony of the fifth degree
Section 706-662 - Criteria for extended terms of imprisonment
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-662 Cited 123 times
Asking whether "the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it is necessary for the protection of the public to extend the Defendant's sentence from a ... possible life term of imprisonment" to a "definite life term of imprisonment"
Section 2303 - Penalties for first and second degree murder
Vt. Stat. tit. 13 § 2303 Cited 77 times
Setting twenty-year minimum imprisonment for second-degree murder

The People, Respondent,v.Michael E. Prindle, Appellant.

56 Cited authorities

Holding 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”

Holding that “[w]hen 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”

Holding any fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence for a crime must be submitted to a jury

Holding that the categorical approach's reliance upon elements rather than means "does not change when a statute happens to list possible alternative means of commission"

Holding that the "jury-trial guarantee proscribes a sentencing scheme that allows a judge to impose a sentence above the statutory maximum based on a fact, other than a prior conviction, not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant"

Holding that the fact of a prior conviction is not an element of an offense even when it increases a defendant's statutory maximum term of imprisonment

Holding that “[i]f a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt”

Holding that Apprendi and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 do not apply to findings of fact necessary for the imposition of consecutive sentences

Holding Florida's former death penalty sentencing scheme unconstitutional because "[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death"

Describing the penalty for a felony of the fifth degree

Asking whether "the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it is necessary for the protection of the public to extend the Defendant's sentence from a ... possible life term of imprisonment" to a "definite life term of imprisonment"

Setting twenty-year minimum imprisonment for second-degree murder