Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (Any fact exposing a defendant to a greater punishment than the statutory maximum must be considered by the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.)Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (A statutory scheme is unconstitutional when judges must determine whether any aggravating factors are present which expose the defendant to greater punishment than otherwise permitted by a jury’s verdict.)Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016)(The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary for the imposition of a death sentence. A jury’s recommendation is not enough.
United States v. Gabrion, 719 F.3d 511, 532-533 (6th Cir. 2013) (The weighing process does not require a finding of fact in support of a given sentence. Because a given defendant is already eligible for the complete statutory range of punishments, the selection of a particular sentence is a determination the judge may properly make.)Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016) (“The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death.” Therefore, a court must base its sentence on the verdict of an impartial jury and not a judge’s fact-finding.
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (Any fact exposing a defendant to a greater punishment than the statutory maximum must be considered by the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.)Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (A statutory scheme is unconstitutional when judges must determine whether any aggravating factors are present which expose the defendant to greater punishment than otherwise permitted by a jury’s verdict.)Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016)(The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary for the imposition of a death sentence. A jury’s recommendation is not enough.
Judge Briscoe also thinks the OCCA did consider the constitutional standard and it was enough to combat arbitrariness that the victim may have suffered for several minutes before dying. On the helpful side, Judge Briscoe thinks Hurst v. Fla. 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), requires resentencing by a jury, and prohibits reweighing by the OCCA. As for the conviction, the 10th says Mr. Pavatt did not preserve two of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel ("IA"")issues in federal district court.
Hurst v. Florida, USSC No. 14-7505, 2016 WL 112683 (January 12, 2016); reversing and remandingHurst v. State, 147 So.3d 435 (Fla. 2014); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)In Florida the jury makes a recommendation as to whether to impose the death penalty, but the judge then holds a separate sentencing hearing and decides whether there are sufficient aggravating circumstances to justify the death penalty. This sentencing scheme is unconstitutional because “[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death.