Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Apprendi v. New Jersey

Supreme Court of the United States · 2000 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth Amendmentjury trialsentencing factorsbeyond reasonable doubtDue Process ClauseApprendi rulestatutory maximum

Facts

New Jersey classified possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose as a second-degree offense punishable by 5 to 10 years. A separate hate crime statute authorized an extended term of 10 to 20 years if the trial judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant acted with a purpose to intimidate because of race or other listed characteristics. Apprendi pleaded guilty to, among other things, a second-degree firearm offense, and the State reserved the right to seek the enhancement on one count. After an evidentiary hearing, the judge found racial bias by a preponderance of the evidence and sentenced Apprendi to 12 years on that count, above the 10-year maximum otherwise authorized for the offense charged.

Issue

Does the Fourteenth Amendment require that a factual finding authorizing an increase in the statutory maximum sentence for an offense be made by a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt? More specifically, could New Jersey permit a judge to increase the maximum sentence from 10 to 20 years based on a finding of biased purpose made by a preponderance of the evidence?

Rule

Other 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. The relevant inquiry is one of effect, not label: if the finding exposes the defendant to greater punishment than the jury's verdict alone authorizes, it functions as an element of a greater offense.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, Dana Mercer is tried for felony vandalism, which carries a sentence of 1 to 8 years. A separate statute allows the judge to increase the available range to 8 to 16 years if the judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Dana selected the property because of the owner's religion. The jury convicts Dana of vandalism, and the judge makes that finding and imposes 12 years.

Is the sentencing procedure constitutional?

Explanation. The procedure is unconstitutional. The controlling rule is that, other 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. It does not matter that the legislature labels the fact a sentencing factor or describes it as motive. The effect of the finding controls: here, the jury's verdict alone authorized at most 8 years, but the judge-found fact exposed Dana to 16 years and supported a 12-year sentence.