U.S. Supreme Court splits 5-4 on firearm sentencing ruling
A splintered U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Harris v. United States that a judge rather than a jury can determine that a defendant was using a firearm during the commission of a crime and thereby increase the mandatory minimum sentence. Interestingly, two years ago in Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Court ruled 5-4 that a defendant may not be exposed to a sentence longer than what he would receive based on the facts found by a jury. In other words, judges could not determine facts that enhanced or lengthened a criminal sentence.
The Court, feeling it did not violate the Apprendi precedent because a minimum sentence was increased, not a maximum, upheld a mandatory minimum seven-year prison sentence given William J. Harris, who pled guilty to selling marijuana in his North Carolina pawn shop. During the sale, he was wearing a holstered pistol.
Under federal sentencing law, “brandishing” a firearm carries a seven-year mandatory minimum sentence, while “carrying” draws at least five years. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted that “The range of punishment to which … Harris was exposed turned on the fact that he brandished a firearm, a fact that was neither charged in his indictment nor proved at trial beyond a reasonable doubt.” justice Thomas declared that “Facts that trigger an increased mandatory minimum sentence warrant constitutional safeguards.”
Copyright National Rifle Association of America Sep 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.