On Point blog, page 2 of 3
SCOTUS: Jury, not judge, must decide whether to impose death penalty
Hurst v. Florida, USSC No. 14-7505, 2016 WL 112683 (January 12, 2016); reversing and remanding Hurst v. State, 147 So.3d 435 (Fla. 2014); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)
In Florida the jury makes a recommendation as to whether to impose the death penalty, but the judge then holds a separate sentencing hearing and decides whether there are sufficient aggravating circumstances to justify the death penalty. This sentencing scheme is unconstitutional because “[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A jury’s mere recommendation is not enough.” (Slip op. at 1).
Record as a whole supplied “competent proof” of prior OWI conviction
State v. Mendell Stokes, 2015AP1335-CR, District 2, 11/4/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Applying State v. Spaeth, 206 Wis. 2d 135, 556 N.W.2d 728 (1996), the court of appeals holds the record provided “competent proof” that Stokes was operating after revocation for a prior OWI offense and, thus, was subject to criminal penalties instead of a civil forfeiture, § 343.44(1)(b) and (2)(ar)2.
Failure to require jury to decide whether conduct qualified for sentence enhancer was error and prejudiced defendant
State v. Lonel L. Johnson, Jr., 2014AP2888-CR, District 3, 9/15/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity
High fives for the defense! The domestic abuse repeater enhancer applied to this defendant increased his maximum penalty for the charged offense. Thus, the court of appeals held (and the State conceded) that the jury had to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that his underlying conduct qualified as an act of domestic abuse. That’s what Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) requires, but it didn’t happen here. The real win, however, is that for once the State did NOT prevail on its claim of harmless error!!
SCOW: Federal RICO conviction “relates to” controlled substances for purposes of the repeat drug offender enhancer
State v. Rogelio Guarnero, 2015 WI 72, 7/9/15, affirming a published court of appeals decision; majority by Roggensack; dissent by Bradley (joined by Abrahamson); case activity (including briefs)
In a decision that is short on analysis and long on Sixth Amendment problems, the supreme court holds that Guarnero’s prior conviction for conspiring to violate the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was a conviction for a crime “under a statute … relating to controlled substances,” and therefore qualified as a prior offense under the repeat drug offender enhancement provision of § 961.41(3g)(c), because the factual basis for the conviction involved controlled substance offenses.
Hurst v. Florida, USSC No. 14-7505, cert. granted 3/9/15
Whether Florida’s death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment in light of this Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).
U.S. Supreme Court holds that a fact that increases the minimum mandatory sentence for a crime must be submitted to the jury
Allen Ryan Alleyne v. United States, USSC No. 11-9335, 6/17/13
United States Supreme Court decision, vacating and remanding United States v. Alleyne, No. 11-4208 (4th Cir. Dec. 15, 2011)
Since Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), a defendant has had the right to demand the jury find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that increases the maximum sentence for a crime.
Use of 1st OWI offense to enhance penalty; collateral attack on prior OWI
State v. Verhagen, State v. Nickles, State v. Van Asten, and State v. Bell, 2013 WI App 16; consolidated court of appeals decision; case activity: Verhagen; Nickles; Van Asten; and Bell
OWI – Use of first offense to enhance penalty
In a prosecution for a second or subsequent OWI offense, New Jersey v. Apprendi,
Allen Ryan Alleyne v. U.S., USSC No. 11-9335, cert granted 10/5/12
Whether this Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), should be overruled.
Lower court opinion (U.S. v. Alleyne, CTA4 No. 11-4208, 12/15/11 (unpublished))
Alleyne was convicted by a jury of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a robbery,
Enhancers – § § 343.307(1), 346.65(2)(am)3., OWI – Jury Determination and Apprendi
State v. Lisa M. Arentz, 2011AP2307-CR / State v. Eric R. Hendricks, 2012AP243-CR, District 2, 9/5/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity (Arentz; Hendricks)
Criminal OWI prosecution is premised on, and a resulting sentence enhanced by, a prior civil-forfeiture OWI conviction (which does not itself require unanimous jury verdict upon proof beyond reasonable doubt). Arentz and Hendricks raise the same arguments: the elements of the underlying civil forfeiture must be proved to the jury beyond reasonable at the criminal trial;
Sufficiency of Evidence: Standard of Review – Possession with Intent to Deliver; Right to Jury Trial – Apprendi – Harmless Error
State v. Roshawn Smith, 2012 WI 91, reversing in part, affirming in part unpublished decision; case activity
Standard of Review: Sufficiency of Evidence
¶29 We understand Smith’s central argument regarding the standard of review on the evidentiary question to be summed up in the proposition that a jury verdict of guilt[9] must be reversed on appeal if “[t]he inferences that may be drawn from the circumstantial evidence are as consistent with innocence as with guilt.”