Cunningham v. California
2007 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Cunningham v. California?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law.
This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. (January 2022) |
Cunningham v. California | |
---|---|
Argued October 11, 2006 Decided January 22, 2007 | |
Full case name | John Cunningham v. People of the State of California |
Docket no. | 05-6551 |
Citations | 549 U.S. 270 (more) 127 S. Ct. 856 |
Case history | |
Prior | Defendant's conviction and sentence upheld by the California Court of Appeal; review denied by the California Supreme Court. |
Holding | |
The Sixth Amendment, as interpreted in Blakely v. Washington (2004), applies to California's determinate sentencing law, and requires that the facts necessary to support imposing the upper term of imprisonment under that scheme be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Thomas |
Dissent | Kennedy, joined by Breyer |
Dissent | Alito, joined by Kennedy, Breyer |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. VI |
In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term. There must exist specific aggravating factors about the crime before a judge may impose the high term. Under the Apprendi rule, as explained in Blakely v. Washington, any fact that increases the punishment above that which the judge may impose without that fact must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In People v. Black, the California Supreme Court rejected the argument that under Blakely, the jury must find the additional facts necessary for the judge to impose the high term under the DSL. In Cunningham, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Black, ruling that Blakely applies to California's determinate sentencing scheme.