Conviction reversed by Oregon Supreme Court, 343 Ore. 248, 170 P.3d 1049. Certiorari granted. 552 U.S. ___ (2008).
Holding
The Sixth Amendment does not inhibit states from assigning to judges, rather than juries, the finding of facts necessary to the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences for multiple offenses.
Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito
Dissent
Scalia, joined by Roberts, Souter, Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. VI, Ore. Rev. Stat. 137.123
Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009), was a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not inhibit states from assigning to judges, rather than juries, the finding of facts necessary to the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences for multiple offenses.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, it has original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, including suits between two or more states and those involving ambassadors. It also has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal court and state court cases that involve a point of federal constitutional or statutory law. The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution or an executive act for being unlawful. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied most of the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Ice, a supervisor of an apartment complex, twice entered a residence and, on each occasion, touched the breasts and vagina of an 11-year-old girl. For each incident, a jury found him guilty of first-degree burglary for entering with the intent to commit sexual assault, as well as two counts of sexual abuse.
The statute under which Ice was sentenced, Oregon Revised Statutes 137.123, generally provided for concurrent sentences. However, it allowed for consecutive sentencing when the offenses did not arise from the same course of conduct. The statute also allowed for such sentencing when the offense was indicative of a willingness to commit more than one offense, or the offense caused or created a risk of greater or qualitatively different harm to the victim.
The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) is the codified body of statutory law governing the U.S. state of Oregon, as enacted by the Oregon Legislative Assembly, and occasionally by citizen initiative. The statutes are subordinate to the Oregon Constitution.
The trial judge found that Ice's conduct satisfied these criteria and ordered that his sentences for the two burglaries and the two sexual assaults, in which he touched the girl's vagina, to be served consecutively. The judge allowed the two sexual assault sentences for touching the girl's breasts to be served concurrently. Thus, the judge's action nearly quadrupled his sentence from 7.5 years to over 28 years.
Question presented
When a defendant has been tried and convicted of multiple offenses, each involving discrete sentencing prescriptions, does the Sixth Amendment mandate jury determination of any fact declared necessary to the imposition of consecutive, in lieu of concurrent, sentences?
Majority opinion
Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito, held that the Sixth Amendment does not prohibit a judge from determining facts that enter into his decision whether to order that sentences for discrete offenses be served consecutively or concurrently.
In a majority of states, the judge has full discretion as to whether sentences for discrete offenses run consecutively or concurrently. In some states, all sentences are presumed to run consecutively unless the judge chooses to order that they run concurrently. The system at issue in Oregon here is that judges are limited in their discretion because they must find certain facts before ordering sentences to run consecutively. This decision clarified that none of these arrangements are prohibited by the Sixth Amendment.
The Court's decision was based on considerations of historical practice, and respect for state sovereignty. As to the first consideration, at common law, judges retained the discretion as to whether to impose sentences consecutively or concurrently for discrete offenses: that was not a function for the jury. Recent legislative enactments are meant to mitigate the harshness of the historical rule, but that does not mean that a defendant is entitled to his sentences running concurrently. Here, the Court found that the judge had not infringed upon jury's role as the finder of fact or its role "as a bulwark at trial between the State and the accused." Also, the Court sought to respect state sovereignty by not second-guessing the state's administration of its criminal justice system without a compelling reason to do so.
Dissent
Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion, with Chief Justice Roberts, Souter, and Thomas joining the dissent.
Scalia criticized the majority opinion as being contrary to Apprendi v. New Jersey, United States v. Booker, and Blakely v. Washington, in which the court had held that any fact (other than a previous conviction) must be admitted by the defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. Scalia noted, "The Court's justification of Oregon's scheme is a virtual copy of the dissents in those cases.
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision with regard to aggravating factors in crimes. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maxima based on facts other than those decided by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision has been a cornerstone in the modern resurgence in jury trial rights. As Justice Scalia noted in his concurring opinion, the jury-trial right "has never been efficient; but it has always been free."
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision on criminals' sentences. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial requires that other than a prior conviction, only facts admitted by a defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury may be used to calculate a sentence exceeding the prescribed statutory maximum sentence, whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial. The maximum sentence that a judge may impose is based upon the facts admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), held that, in the context of mandatory sentencing guidelines under state law, the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences based on facts other than those decided by the jury or admitted by the defendant. The landmark nature of the case was alluded to by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who "described the Court's decision as a 'Number 10 earthquake.'"
"...Instead, the Court attempts to distinguish Oregon's sentencing scheme by reasoning that the rule of Apprendi applies only to the length of a sentence for an individual crime and not to the total sentence for a defendant. I cannot understand why we would make such a strange exception to the treasured right of trial by jury. Neither the reasoning of the Apprendi line of cases, nor any distinctive history of the factfinding necessary to imposition of consecutive sentences, nor (of course) logic supports such an odd rule.
"...Finally, the Court summons up the parade of horribles assembled by the amicus brief of 17 States supporting Oregon. It notes that '[t]rial judges often find facts' in connection with 'a variety of sentencing determinations other than the length of incarceration,' and worries that even their ability to set the length of supervised release, impose community service, or order entry into a drug rehabilitation program, may be called into question. Ante, at 10. But if these courses reduce rather than augment the punishment that the jury verdict imposes, there is no problem."
Significance
The Court here limited the application of a rule laid down in Apprendi v. New Jersey and extended in Blakely v. Washington and Cunningham v. California, requiring juries to find the existence of certain facts before increasing the length of a defendant's prison sentence beyond the statutory maximum.
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), held that the rule first announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), applies to California's Determinate Sentencing Law. In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term. There must exist specific aggravating factors about the crime before a judge may impose the high term. Under the Apprendi rule, as explained in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), any fact that increases the punishment above that which the judge may impose without that fact must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In People v. Black, the California Supreme Court rejected the argument that under Blakely, the jury must find the additional facts necessary for the judge to impose the high term under the DSL. In Cunningham, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Black, ruling that Blakely applies to California's determinate sentencing scheme.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Related Research Articles
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), was a criminal case in which the United States Supreme Court struck down all death penalty schemes in the United States in a 5–4 decision, with each member of the majority writing a separate opinion. Following Furman, in order to reinstate the death penalty, states had to at least remove arbitrary and discriminatory effects, to satisfy the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The term sentence in law refers to punishment that was actually ordered by a trial court in a criminal procedure. A sentence forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process as well as the symbolic principal act connected to their function. The sentence can generally involve a decree of imprisonment, a fine, and/or other punishments against a defendant convicted of a crime. Those imprisoned for multiple crimes usually serve a concurrent sentence, while others serve a consecutive sentence. Additional sentences include intermediate, which allows an inmate to be free for about 8 hours a day for work purposes; determinate, which is fixed on a number of days, months, or years; and indeterminate or bifurcated, which mandates the minimum period be served in an institutional setting such as a prison followed by "street time" until the total sentence is completed.
Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), reaffirmed the United States Supreme Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. Referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg, the Supreme Court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines are rules that set out a uniform policy for sentencing individuals and organizations convicted of felonies and serious misdemeanors in the United States federal courts system. The Guidelines do not apply to less serious misdemeanors.
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court applied the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, to capital sentencing schemes, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. Ring overruled a portion of Walton v. Arizona, that had previously rejected this contention.
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified how federal courts of appeals should implement the remedy for the Sixth Amendment violation identified in United States v. Booker. In Booker, the Court held that because the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory and binding on judges in criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment required that any fact necessary to impose a sentence above the top of the authorized Guidelines range must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Booker remedy made the Guidelines merely advisory and commanded federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for "reasonableness." Rita clarified that a sentence within the Guidelines range may be presumed "reasonable."
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:
Spaziano v. Florida, was two United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the imposition of the death penalty. In the first case, 454 U.S. 1037 (1981), the Supreme Court, with two dissents, refused Spaziano's petition for certiorari. However, the Florida Supreme Court would reverse Spaziano's death sentence based on the judge's receipt of a confidential report which was not received by either party. On remand, the judge reimposed the death penalty and the Florida Supreme Court upheld the sentence. In the second case, 468 U.S. 447 (1984), the Court heard Spaziano's appeal of his death sentence.
The most outstanding feature in the United States is that verdicts in criminal cases must almost always be unanimous.
North v. Russell, 427 U.S. 328 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that a non-lawyer jurist can constitutionally sit in a jail-carrying criminal case provided that the defendant has an opportunity through an appeal to obtain a second trial before a judge who is a lawyer.
The United States Constitution contains several provisions related to criminal sentencing.
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that, in line with Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), all facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to and found true by a jury. The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012), was a Supreme Court decision that applied the rule set out in Apprendi v. New Jersey—that certain non-conviction elements of a crime must be proved to a jury—to criminal penalties. The 6-3 decision was authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8-1 ruling, applied the rule of Ring v. Arizona to the Florida capital sentencing scheme, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. In Florida, under a 2013 statute, the jury made recommendations but the judge decided the facts.
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.
