Harris v. United States
536 U.S. 545 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A fact that increases a mandatory minimum sentence, but does not increase the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, is a sentencing factor that a judge may find by a preponderance of the evidence. Such a fact is not an element of the crime that must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- William Joseph Harris sold illegal narcotics from his pawnshop.
- While conducting drug sales, Harris kept an unconcealed semiautomatic pistol at his side.
- Harris was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), which sets a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime.
- The same statute increases the mandatory minimum sentence to seven years if the firearm is 'brandished' and to ten years if it is 'discharged'.
- Harris was subsequently arrested by federal authorities for violating drug and firearms laws.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States government indicted William Harris in federal district court, alleging he 'knowingly carried a firearm' during a drug crime, but the indictment did not allege that he 'brandished' it.
- Following a bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Harris was found guilty as charged.
- At the sentencing hearing, the District Court judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that Harris had 'brandished' the firearm.
- Based on this judicial finding, the court imposed the higher mandatory minimum sentence of seven years in prison, rather than the five-year minimum for simply carrying a firearm.
- Harris (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, arguing that 'brandishing' was an element of the offense that must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence, holding that 'brandishing' was a sentencing factor, not an element, and that its determination by a judge was constitutional.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal statute that allows a judge to find a fact by a preponderance of the evidence to increase a defendant's mandatory minimum sentence, but not beyond the statutory maximum, violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment's notice and jury trial guarantees?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. A federal statute that directs a judge to impose a higher mandatory minimum sentence based on a factual finding does not violate the Fifth or Sixth Amendments, so long as the sentence remains within the maximum prescribed by the statute for the underlying crime. The Court first determined that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, Congress intended 'brandishing' to be a sentencing factor, not an element of a separate crime, based on the statute's structure and legislative history. Constitutionally, the Court reaffirmed its holding in McMillan v. Pennsylvania, distinguishing it from Apprendi v. New Jersey. Apprendi held that any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the penalty beyond the prescribed statutory maximum is an element that must be found by a jury. Here, the finding of 'brandishing' only raised the sentencing 'floor' (the minimum), but did not authorize a sentence above the maximum already permitted by the jury's guilty verdict. Therefore, such a fact is a sentencing factor that guides judicial discretion within the authorized range and can be found by a judge.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
Yes. A fact that increases the mandatory minimum sentence a defendant faces is an element of the crime that must be charged in an indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The majority's holding rests on a flawed and illogical distinction between facts that raise the sentencing 'ceiling' and those that raise the 'floor.' Any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a defendant is exposed, whether by altering the minimum or the maximum, constitutes an element of an aggravated offense. Raising the mandatory minimum from five to seven years exposes the defendant to greater punishment and a higher degree of social stigma. The Court's prior decision in McMillan v. Pennsylvania is irreconcilable with the principles of Apprendi v. New Jersey and should be overruled.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
No. Because I dissented in both Jones v. United States and Apprendi v. New Jersey and still believe they were wrongly decided, I find it easy to reject the petitioner's arguments, which are based on those precedents. Even accepting the validity of those cases, I agree with the majority's reasoning that they do not compel a different result here. I therefore join Justice Kennedy's opinion in its entirety.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
No. While I 'cannot easily distinguish Apprendi... from this case in terms of logic,' I continue to believe that Apprendi was wrongly decided and that the Sixth Amendment permits judges to apply sentencing factors. Extending Apprendi's rule to mandatory minimums would have adverse practical consequences, such as transferring sentencing power from judges to prosecutors through charging decisions, rather than to juries. Although I oppose mandatory minimums as a matter of policy, I cannot accept extending the Apprendi rule and therefore concur in the Court's judgment.
Analysis:
Harris v. United States established a significant, albeit formalistic, distinction in Sixth Amendment jurisprudence between facts that increase a statutory maximum and those that increase a mandatory minimum. By upholding McMillan and limiting Apprendi, the Court preserved the constitutionality of numerous federal and state sentencing schemes that relied on judicial fact-finding to trigger mandatory minimums. This decision created a clear but controversial line, drawing criticism that it ignored the practical reality that a higher mandatory minimum often has a greater impact on a defendant's sentence than a higher maximum. The case is a critical waypoint in understanding the evolution of sentencing law, especially because its central holding was eventually overruled by Alleyne v. United States (2013), which held that any fact that increases a mandatory minimum is an 'element' that must be submitted to the jury.
Unlock the full brief for Harris v. United States