Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Blakely v. Washington

Supreme Court of the United States · 2004 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth Amendmentjury trialsentencing guidelinesApprendiSixth Amendmentjury trial rightApprendi

Facts

Blakely pleaded guilty to second-degree kidnapping involving domestic violence and use of a firearm, admitting only the elements of that offense and the domestic-violence and firearm allegations. Under Washington's sentencing law, the facts admitted in the plea supported a standard sentencing range of 49 to 53 months. The judge rejected the State's recommendation of a sentence within that range and imposed an exceptional sentence of 90 months after finding that Blakely had acted with deliberate cruelty. That finding was made by the judge after a bench hearing and was neither admitted by Blakely nor found by a jury.

Issue

Whether Washington violated the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury by allowing a judge to impose an exceptional sentence above the standard range based on the judge's own finding that the defendant acted with deliberate cruelty. More specifically, whether the relevant statutory maximum was the 10-year maximum for the class B felony or the 53-month maximum authorized by the admitted facts alone.

Rule

Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. For Apprendi purposes, the statutory maximum is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum sentence the judge may impose without any additional findings, based solely on the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.

🔒

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 Phoenix, Diego Ramos is convicted by a jury of residential burglary. Arizona law sets a presumptive sentencing range of 4 to 6 years for the offense, but permits a judge to impose up to 10 years if the judge finds the burglary involved "particular cruelty." At sentencing, the judge makes that finding after hearing victim testimony and imposes 9 years.

Was Diego's 9-year sentence constitutionally imposed?

Explanation. The sentence is invalid. The controlling rule is that, other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact increasing punishment beyond the maximum the judge may impose solely on the basis of the jury verdict or the defendant's admissions must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the jury verdict alone authorized no more than 6 years. The judge reached 9 years only by finding an additional aggravating fact, so the Sixth Amendment was violated.