US Supreme Court to hear case on jury’s decisions on increasing minimum sentence

Listen to this article

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether existing precedent should be overruled to require a jury to decide facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence.

The Court will review a 4th Circuit decision holding that a robbery defendant did not have the right to have a jury decide facts elevating his mandatory minimum sentence for a related firearm conviction from five years to seven years.

A federal jury found the defendant guilty of robbery and the use or carrying of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. At sentencing, the district court held the defendant responsible for brandishing a firearm in the commission of the underlying offense. Based on that finding and pursuant to a federal sentencing statute, the court elevated the defendant’s mandatory minimum sentence for the firearm conviction from five years to seven years.

The defendant argued that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because the district court held him accountable for brandishing the firearm even though the jury had not found him guilty of that offense.

But the 4th Circuit held that the defendant’s argument was foreclosed by Harris v. United States (536 U.S. 545). In Harris, the Court held that whether a defendant “brandished” a gun while committing a drug crime is not an element of the crime and may be decided by a judge.

“We do not find the district court’s finding otherwise clearly erroneous,” the 4th Circuit said.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case this term.

Alleyne v. U.S., No. 11-9335. Certiorari granted: Oct. 5, 2012. Ruling below: 456 Fed. Appx. 348 (4th Cir. 2011).