Alleyne v. United States
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2013) |
| Alleyne v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 14, 2013 Decided June 17, 2013 | |
| Full case name | Allen Ryan Alleyne, Petitioner v. United States |
| Docket no. | 11-9335 |
| Citations | 570 U.S. 99 (more) 133 S. Ct. 2151; 186 L. Ed. 2d 314 |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | United States v. Alleyne, 457 F. App'x 348 (4th Cir. 2011) |
| Holding | |
| Because mandatory minimum sentences increase the penalty for a crime, any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an "element" of the crime that must be submitted to the jury. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan (Parts I, III–B, III–C, and IV); Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan (Parts II and III–A) |
| Concurrence | Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Breyer (in part) |
| Dissent | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy |
| Dissent | Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. VI | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
| Harris v. United States (2002) | |
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 for a criminal offense must be submitted to and found true by a jury, not merely determined to be true at a judge's discretion. The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.[1]
Summary of findings
[edit]In the original trial, the defendant (Alleyne) was convicted of using or carrying a firearm in a violent crime, which carried a mandatory minimum penalty of five years' imprisonment. However, the mandatory minimum would rise to seven years if the accused were found to have "brandished" the firearm during the crime, and to ten years if it had been fired. In the original trial the judge, rather than the jury, determined that Alleyne had probably brandished the firearm during the robbery, which caused the mandatory minimum sentence to rise to seven years (which was the sentence imposed).
The Supreme Court found that the question of whether or not the accused had brandished his weapon during the robbery was not merely a "sentencing factor," which the judge could unilaterally decide, but an "ingredient of the offense," which must be assessed and decided upon by the jury. The Court also expressly overruled Harris v. United States (2002), which had reached a contrary ruling.[2]
See also
[edit]
References
[edit]- ^ Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013).
- ^ "SUPREME COURT UPDATE: ALLEYNE V. UNITED STATES (11-9335) AND SALINAS V. TEXAS (12-246)". Appellate and Complex Legal Issues Practice Group, Wiggin and Dana LLP. June 19, 2013. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved July 27, 2013.
Further reading
[edit]- Applebaum, Brynn (2015). "Criminal Asset Forfeiture and the Sixth Amendment after Southern Union and Alleyne: State-Level Ramifications". Vand. L. Rev. 68 (2): 549–574.
- Bala, Nila (2015). "Judicial Fact-Finding in the Wake of Alleyne". New York University Review of Law & Social Change. 39 (1): 1–44.
External links
[edit]- Text of Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |