Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

United States v. Booker

Supreme Court of the United States · 2005 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureSixth AmendmentFederal Sentencing Guidelinesadvisory guidelinesApprendiSixth Amendmentjury trialreasonable doubt

Facts

Booker was convicted by a jury of possessing with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of crack cocaine. Based on the jury-found drug quantity and his criminal history, the Guidelines authorized a sentencing range of 210 to 262 months, but the judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that Booker possessed an additional 566 grams of crack and had obstructed justice, which raised the Guidelines range to 360 months to life; the judge imposed 360 months. Fanfan was convicted by a jury of conspiracy involving 500 grams or more of cocaine, and the Guidelines authorized a maximum sentence of 78 months on the jury verdict alone. The judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that Fanfan was responsible for additional drug quantities and had a leadership role, which would have raised the Guidelines range to 188 to 235 months, but the judge refused to apply those enhancements and sentenced him based solely on the jury verdict.

Issue

Whether application of the mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines violates the Sixth Amendment when a judge increases a defendant's sentence based on facts, other than a prior conviction, that were not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt or admitted by the defendant. More specifically, the question was whether Blakely's understanding of the statutory maximum applies to the Guidelines.

Rule

Any fact, other than the fact of a prior conviction, that is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a guilty plea or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. For Apprendi purposes, the relevant maximum is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of 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 Cleveland, Omar Velez is convicted by a jury of a burglary offense. Under a mandatory state guideline code, the jury's findings authorize a sentencing range of 24 to 30 months, but the judge finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Omar restrained a resident during the crime, which makes a 48-to-60-month range legally required, and the judge imposes 50 months.

Does the sentence violate the Sixth Amendment?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that any fact, other than a prior conviction, that is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by the jury verdict or the defendant's admissions must be admitted or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant maximum is not the broad statutory ceiling for the offense, but the maximum sentence the judge may impose solely on the basis of the jury verdict. Because the guideline system is mandatory and the judge had to find an additional fact to reach 50 months, the sentence violates the Sixth Amendment.