Cunningham v. California, Opinion No. 05-6551.

Argued October 11, 2006
Decided January 22, 2007

The United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether California’s determinate sentencing law (DSL) violated the sixth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution.

In and opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, with a dissent by Justice Kennedy, in which Justice Breyer joined, and a separate dissent by Justice Alito held: California’s DSL did violate the sixth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution by permitting a Judge to impose an enhanced criminal sentence based on aggravating factors that were not submitted to the jury, thereby denying the defendant his right to a full and fair jury trial.

John Cunningham was jury convicted for continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of fourteen and sentenced to sixteen years in prison.  The sixteen years in prison was the upper term sentence for child molestation in
California.

The trial judge relied on numerous aggravating factors when the decision was made to depart from the middle term sentence of twelve years, in harmony with California’s DSL guidelines.

Cunningham appealed to the California Court of
Appeals, arguing that his sentence violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because the trial judge imposed the upper term sentence based on aggravating factors not found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury.

The California Court of Appeals disagreed with Cunningham, and affirmed the sentence.  California’s Supreme Court denied review.

The United States Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded, holding that California’s DSL guidelines unconstitutionally permit a judge to impose an enhanced sentence based on factors the jury was never made aware of.

The Court applied the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), concluding: the statutory maximum prescribed by California’s DSL guidelines was the middle term of 12 years because it was the maximum term a judge could impose based solely on the findings of the jury or admissions of the defendant.

The Court noted that California’s DSL guidelines do not allow a trial judge to exercise broad discretion within the statutory framework, and according to Apprendi and its progeny, the aggravating factors used to impose an upper term must be submitted to a jury and are subject to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard afforded a defendant in a criminal trial. The Court concluded that California’s DSL guidelines unconstitutionally denied Cunningham his right to trial by jury and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Disclaimer Language:

Legalnut.com offers summaries to its visitors for informational purposes.  These summaries are not intended to be a comprehensive resource of case law, nor a substitute for comprehensive legal research.  Legal decisions should not be based on the legal summaries provided.  In-depth legal research and/or consultation with a competent attorney are required, and these summaries are not to be deemed a substitute to or for either.