## Facts

- John Cunningham, a former police officer, was convicted by a jury in California of continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14.
- Under California’s Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL), the offense carried three fixed terms: 6 years (lower), 12 years (middle), and 16 years (upper).
- The DSL required the trial judge to impose the 12-year middle term unless the judge found one or more aggravating circumstances justifying the upper term.
- At a post-trial sentencing hearing, the judge (not the jury) found six aggravating facts by a preponderance of the evidence, including the victim’s particular vulnerability.
- The judge found one mitigating fact: Cunningham had no prior criminal record.
- Finding aggravation outweighed mitigation, the judge imposed the 16-year upper term.
- Cunningham argued the Sixth Amendment required any fact increasing his sentence above the middle term to be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments permit a sentencing scheme that authorizes an upper-term sentence based on aggravating facts found by a judge, rather than a jury, under a preponderance standard.
2. For Apprendi/Blakely purposes, whether the relevant “statutory maximum” under California’s DSL is the upper term in the statutory triad or the middle term that must be imposed absent additional factfinding.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that California’s DSL violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments by assigning to the judge the factfinding necessary to impose an upper-term sentence.
- The Court concluded that, because the middle term was mandatory absent additional findings, the middle term was the maximum sentence authorized by the jury’s verdict alone.
- The aggravating facts used to increase Cunningham’s sentence were not prior convictions and therefore had to be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- Any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases a defendant’s authorized punishment above the maximum supported solely by the jury’s verdict or the defendant’s admissions must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The “statutory maximum” for Sixth Amendment sentencing analysis is the highest sentence a judge may impose without making additional factual findings beyond the verdict or admissions.
- A sentencing system violates the Sixth Amendment when it makes a higher sentence contingent on judge-found aggravating facts proved only by a preponderance of the evidence.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated California’s mandatory upper-term procedure because it increased punishment based on judge-found aggravating facts; under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, the facts required to exceed the verdict-authorized sentence must be determined by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (except for prior convictions).


Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007)