Prof. Bridget Gladwin
COR 201-09

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000)
In the early morning hours of December 22, 1994, Charles Apprendi, Jr., fired several .22-caliber bullets into the home of an African-American family that had recently moved into his neighborhood. He was arrested an hour later. During questioning by police, he admitted that he shot at the house because its occupants were "black in color" and for that reason he did not "want them in the neighborhood. "Later, Apprendi pleaded guilty to weapons possession charges. Each of these counts carried a sentence of between 5 and 10 years in prison. The count was no refer to
State hate crime Statue, which could increase the sentence if the trial judge preponderance of the evidence. Which proof that the defendant committed the crime because wanted to intimidate the neighbords because of their race. When Apprend pleaded guilty the prosecutor filed a motion to extend the defendant sentence. The court founded preponderance of the evidence that the shooting was in fact due to racial motivations and Apprendi was sentenced for 12 years on the firearm count. To support the sentence, the court of appeals denied Apprendi claim that the Due Process Clause requires that a bias finding be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the State Supreme Court declared. Apprendi on appeal brought a constitutional claim under the due process he lost at the intermediate court, but the New Jersey Supreme Court had a divided opinion. The Court there went along with procedures that the court have up to them which was to carefully analyzed the statute, to see whether if something is an element or just an sentencing factor. When the Supreme Court was presented with this issue they were looking for it and was ready for it because they had cases leading up to it. At least five of the justices thought it was time to set the “The bright line rule” and they did exactly that. They did not did the multifactor analysis to decide whatever this was element of crime or a sentencing enhancement, rather they said if this is a fact that lead a sentence beyond the maximum and is not a prior conviction it must be plead and prove beyond the reasonable doubt. The issue is this cases is does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt?. Yes, the Court held that the Due Process Clause requires that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, other than the fact of a prior conviction, must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Blackely v. Washimgton (2004)

Ralph Howard Blakely, was involved in 80 or more lawsuits covering irrigation water rights, as well as crimes of assault, shoplifting, and many others. When his wife filed for divorce, Blakely kidnapped her from her home at knifepoint, forced her into a wooden box in the back of his pickup truck, and took her to Montana. He ordered their 13 year old son to follow in another car, threatening to shoot his estranged wife with a shotgun if he did not comply. En route to
Montana, their son escaped and alerted the police FBI agents and sheriffs arrested Blakely in
Montana. Blakely pleaded guilty to second degree kidnapping involving domestic violence and use of a firearm. If someone is convicted of first-degree kidnapping of a minor in Washington
State, one must register as a sex offender upon release from prison. To prevent from doing that, Mr. Blakely negotiated a plea for a longer sentence while pleading guilty only to second- degree kidnapping admitting the facts necessary to support those charges but no others. Under
Washington law, second-degree kidnapping was a class B felony, punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years in