Almendarez-Torres v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1998 |
| Docket Number | 966839 |
| Citation | 523 U.S. 224,140 L.Ed.2d 350,118 S.Ct. 1219 |
| Parties | Hugo Romanetitioner, v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
4412 cases
-
People v. Gayanich, A113729 (Cal. App. 4/27/2007)
...articulated in Blakely and Cunningham. In Apprendi the court specifically declared, based on its prior decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 224, that, "Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed ......
-
Carrillo v. Biter
...a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt); Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (holding that treating recidivism solely as a sentencing factor did not offend due process, and expressly confirming tha......
-
Arellano v. Harrington, No. CIV S-10-2684 DAD P
...that the sentencing judge relied upon was established in a manner consistent with the Sixth Amendment. In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 239-47 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the fact of a prior conviction does not have to be determined by a jury before a sentencing ......
-
State v. Guice, No. COA99-1261.
...right to "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury" that was implicated in our recent decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). We thus do not address the indictment question separately Id. at 476-77 n. 3, 120 S.Ct. at 2355 n. 3, ......
Request a trial to view additional results
29 books & journal articles
-
The Rocky Road to Energy Dominance: the Executive Branch’s Limited Authority to Modify and Revoke Withdrawals of Federal Lands From Mineral Production
...of a section’ are ‘tools available for the resolution of a doubt’ about the meaning of a statute.” Almendarez- Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 234 (1998) (quoting Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 528–529 (1947)). Thus, if there is ambiguity about the meaning of any ......
-
THE BURDENS OF THE EXCESSIVE FINES CLAUSE.
...v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). (25.) See infra notes 143-46 and accompanying text. (26.) See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (27.) See, e.g., KAN. STAT. ANN. [section] 21-6611(a)-(b) (2012). This Article uses the term "fees" to refer to administrative fees--such ......
-
Post-trial
...or enhancement factor to be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See also Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The continued viability of Almendarez-Torres is in doubt, however, based on Apprendi and Blakely . But see United States v. Burrell, 2004 ......
-
The Meaning of Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights: Sentencing in Federal Drug Cases After Apprendi v. New Jersey and Harris v. United States
...J., dissenting) (adopting the proposed rule of Justice Stevens' dissent without joining it). [84]. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 250-260 (1998) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (discussing the line of cases from Winship to McMillan and pointing to the narrowing of the Mullan......
Request a trial to view additional results