Court rejects Calif. sentencing law

WASHINGTON -- The US Supreme Court yesterday struck down California's sentencing law and strongly reaffirmed the court's view that judges may not impose tough prison time based on factors that have not been determined by a jury.

The 6-to-3 decision orders California to overhaul its method of sentencing criminal defendants, which could mean shorter prison terms for thousands of state prisoners. For other states and the federal government, it was the latest in a series of rulings dating to 2000 that restrict a judge's ability to find the aggravating factors that would allow for tougher sentences.

"This court has repeatedly held that, under the Sixth Amendment, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by the jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority.

It was a majority that gives credence to the justices' often-made complaint about attempts to peg them as liberal or conservative.

The prevailing side in Cunningham v. California consisted of Ginsburg, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Chief Justice John Roberts. The newest justice, Samuel Alito, wrote a dissent that was joined by Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy .

Roberts' decision to join the majority is significant , said Michael O'Hear, a Marquette University law professor ; his predecessor, William Rehnquist, was on the other side. "Roberts's acceptance of jury-trial rights" means a solid majority exists for the future, O'Hear said.

The court's move began with Apprendi v. New Jersey, in which a 5-to-4 majority said that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

The court expanded the finding in a 2004 ruling regarding the state of Washington, and in 2005 the court found federal mandatory-sentencing laws unconstitutional. The court held that to remedy the system, the mandatory guidelines must become advisory and appellate courts must review them for reasonableness.

Alito argued that California's law met the standards the court had set for the federal system. "The California sentencing law that the court strikes down today is indistinguishable in any constitutionally significant respect" from the remedy the court offered in 2005, Alito wrote.

Kennedy and Breyer have always opposed the court's resistance to allowing judicial discretion.

The debate may seem procedural rather than substantive, but the case that arrived at the court shows the impact.

Police Officer John Cunningham was convicted in 2003 of molesting his son . Under California's Determinate Sentencing Law, Cunningham's crime was punishable by six, 12, or 16 years in prison. The law said Cunningham should receive the middle term unless the judge found more "circumstances in aggravation."

The judge found six aggravating circumstances, including violent conduct and the boy's vulnerability . The only thing the judge found in Cunningham's favor was that he had never been arrested ; he was sentenced to 16 years.

"We reserve that disposition because the four-year sentence elevation, based solely on a judge's fact-finding, denied Cunningham his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury," Ginsburg read from the bench. As for a remedy, she said "the ball lies in California's court."