What is something new you discovered about criminal law that you did not know before taking this course?

What is something new you discovered about criminal law that you did not know before taking this course?

What is something new you discovered about criminal law that you did not know before taking this course? How will it help you in your future plans? Has your view of criminal law change? Why or why not?

Please use this as the basis of my paper.

Sentencing Enhancement by Judges

Until recently, judges could use evidence received at the sentencing hearing to enhance a sentence beyond the
statutory maximum by making a determination of the new facts to a preponderance of evidence. However, in
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the US Supreme Court held that the right to a jury trial prohibits
judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond the statutory maximum based on facts not determined by a
jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In Apprendi, the trial court enhanced the defendant’s sentence beyond the
statutory maximum for possession of a firearm with an unlawful purpose under New Jersey’s hate crimes statute.
Although the jury did not determine that the defendant’s crime was a hate crime, the judge accepted new evidence
at sentencing that indicated the defendant’s shooting into a residence was racially motivated. The US Supreme
Court reversed the New Jersey Supreme Court, which upheld the sentencing procedure. The Court held that other
than evidence of a prior conviction, a judge cannot enhance a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum
unless there has been a factual determination by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the facts supporting the
sentencing enhancement. The Court based its holding on the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial as incorporated
and applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
Post-Apprendi, this holding was extended to federal sentencing guidelines in U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005). In Booker, a federal judge enhanced a sentence following mandatory US Sentencing Guidelines, which
permitted judges to find the sentencing enhancement facts using the preponderance of evidence standard. The US
Supreme Court ruled that the enhancement was invalid under the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and held
that the US Sentencing Guidelines would be advisory only, never mandatory. Booker was based on Blakely v.
Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), which invalidated a similar Washington State sentencing procedure.
Pursuant to Apprendi, Booker, and Blakely, a criminal defendant’s sentence is unconstitutional under the Sixth
Amendment right to a jury trial if it is enhanced beyond the statutory maximum by facts that were not determined
by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This premise applies in federal and state courts and also to guilty pleas rather
than jury verdicts (Blakely v. Washington, 2010).
101 Criminal Law
Example of an Unconstitutional Sentence Enhancement
Ross is tried and convicted by a jury of simple kidnapping. The maximum sentence for simple kidnapping is five
years. At Ross’s sentencing hearing, the judge hears testimony from Ross’s kidnapping victim about the physical
and mental torture Ross inflicted during the kidnapping. The victim did not testify at trial. The judge finds that
the victim’s testimony is credible and rules that Ross used cruelty during the kidnapping by a preponderance
of evidence. The judge thereafter enhances Ross’s sentence to eight years, based on a statutory sentencing
enhancement of three years for “deliberate cruelty inflicted during the commission of a crime.” The three-year
sentencing enhancement is most likely unconstitutional. Under the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, the jury
must find deliberate cruelty beyond a reasonable doubt. A court can strike the enhancement of three years on
appeal, and on remand, the trial court cannot increase the sentence beyond the five-year maximum.