Summary
Elements of crime must be submitted to the jury if it has more significant impact on the required minimum punishment, rather than simply being a “sentencing factor.” In addition, a finding that a defendant committed a felony of violence while using a firearm is an element of a different, more severe felony that must be shown by a jury on its own. During a robbery of a convenience store manager in Petersburg, Virginia, on October 1, Allen and two fellows stole from a manager of his nightly deposit. Alleyne was caught in April 2010 following a lengthy investigation for robbery and handling a handgun.
The jury found Alleyne guilty of charges on September 7, 2010, and the Eastern District of Virginia United States District Court sentenced him to stay in prison 130 months. The required minimum penalty is five years, which rises to seven years, “if the handgun is brandished,” and ten years, “if the firearm is discharged” (i). A handgun had been used or carried by Alleyne at the time of the offense, but it had not been brandished, according to the jury form on which he was found guilty (Beaty, 2013). He maintained that the court ruling form indicated the jury didn’t find brandish beyond reasonable doubts and imposing his shortest term based on the judge decision on brandish would take away his legal power to a fair trying.
The Court ruled over these concerns and relied on the most powerful Court’s decision in the Harris of US case to preside in favor of prosecution’s case. The Fourth Circuit overruled Alleyne’s objection because Harris had preempted it.
Policies and procedures
Right to a fair trial
Alleged criminals are guaranteed their right to a unbiased trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment. With the Due Process Clause, these right demands that a jury is convinced of one by one element of a crime up to the last. The Supreme Court’s decisions in US v. Gaudin and the decision in In re Winship are two examples of cases where a defendant’s constitutional rights have been violated (Mastrofski, 2016). This right’s breadth and content are dependent on the proper identification of the facts that constitute the offense.
Minimum Sentence If Preponderance of Evidence Is Found
To receive a required minimum sentence for certain offenses, judges must find a majority of incriminating evidence were that the accused had visible a firearm during commissioning of the crimes. There was a brief discussion of these issues in the 477th US Circuit Court of Appeals in 477 USC, at 81, n. 1. Although the Court accepted that the State’s capacity to “define offenses and prescribe penalties” was constrained by the Constitution, it held that the Commonwealth had lawfully characterized conspicuous ownership as a reason to sentence rather than elements of the offense. A preponderance of evidence was sufficient for the judge, instead of the jury, to reach this conclusion without breaching due process.
Elements
Facts that raise the floor and the ceiling are included in any definition of the term “components.” these kinds of circumstances modify the intensity of punishments to which a defendant should be subjected and doing so in a way that exacerbates penalty. Jurors must be presented with evidence that increases the required minimum sentence and found beyond a reasonable doubt.
Indictment
Upon conviction on the accusation, a plea of guilty to the summary offense may be entered in Crown Court by the defendant; However, if the person admits guilt, they can be sentenced in a manner that would have been acceptable to a magistrates’ Court had they been convicted. The Crown Court’s authority ends if he doesn’t plead guilty. Paragraph 6 Sch.3 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 states that if there is no evidence, a court can dismiss the case or remit it to the magistrates’ Court (Nix, 2017). Due to the widespread acceptance of these principles, it has become standard procedure to include in the accusation and present any facts supporting the imposition or elevation of penalty to the jury. The defendant was charged with theft, and he was convicted. A summary offense under s40 C.J.A. 1988 can be tried and sentenced in the Crown Court, although the magistrates’ Court could have handled him differently.
Aggravating Fact
An accused peron can only be guilty of a crime that the jury considers all factors necessary to convict them. For this reason and others, brandishing is an aggravating factor that is to be determined by jury, irrespective of the punishment the accused may have gotten if all guidelines were in effect for their case (Tyler, 2015). A judge’s determination that increases the maximum sentence violates the Sixth Amendment though they sentence the accused to a ruling that falls in the bracket of the original punishment.
Conclusion
He appealed the trial court’s decision because he believed that a jury should decide whether or not a fact existed that could raise his required sentence for breaking a criminal law. Under the Sixth Amendment, a fact introducing a crime’s required minimum sentence must be presented and decided by the jury. Alleyne’s minimum sentence was enhanced from five to seven years because Alleyne brandished the gun. The district court, however, ruled that Alleyne’s Sixth Amendment were violated since he pointed a gun at them.
References
Beaty, T. A. (2013). Alleyne v. United States. Ohio NUL Rev., 40, 629.Epps, D. (2012). Bailey v United States: Another Win for that Doggone Fourth Amendment. Cato Sup. Ct. Rev., 187.
Mastrofski, S. D., Jonathan-Zamir, T., Moyal, S., & Willis, J. J. (2016). Predicting procedural justice in police-citizen encounters. Criminal justice and behavior, 43(1), 119-139.
Nix, J., Pickett, J. T., Wolfe, S. E., & Campbell, B. A. (2017). Demeanor, race, and police perceptions of procedural justice: Evidence from two randomized experiments. Justice Quarterly, 34(7), 1154-1183.
Tyler, T. R., Goff, P. A., & MacCoun, R. J. (2015). The impact of psychological science on policing in the United States: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. Psychological science in the public interest, 16(3), 75-109.
write