## Facts

- Timothy Lee Hurst was convicted in Florida state court of the 1998 robbery-murder of a coworker at a restaurant.
- Under Florida law at the time, a conviction for capital murder authorized a maximum sentence of life imprisonment unless additional findings supporting death were made in a separate penalty proceeding.
- In the penalty phase, a jury heard evidence and, by a majority vote, issued an advisory recommendation of life or death.
- The trial judge independently determined the existence and weight of aggravating and mitigating circumstances and imposed a death sentence.
- After a new sentencing proceeding on appeal, the jury again recommended death, and the judge again made the findings deemed necessary to sentence Hurst to death.
- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed and rejected Hurst’s Sixth Amendment challenge under the rule applied to capital sentencing in Ring.

## Issues

1. Whether Florida’s capital sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment by permitting a judge, rather than a jury, to find the facts necessary to impose a death sentence.
2. Whether a jury’s nonbinding advisory recommendation can satisfy the Sixth Amendment requirement that any fact increasing the maximum authorized punishment be found by a jury.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed in an 8–1 decision.
- The Court held that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme violated the Sixth Amendment as applied through the Apprendi–Ring rule.
- The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death; a mere advisory recommendation is insufficient.
- The Court determined that prior decisions upholding Florida’s judge-centered death sentencing could not stand in light of Apprendi and Ring.

## Legal Principles

- Any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases the maximum punishment authorized by a jury’s guilty verdict must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
- In capital cases, facts that make a defendant eligible for the death penalty are elements for Sixth Amendment purposes and must be found by a jury.
- A sentencing structure violates the Sixth Amendment when the jury’s role is advisory and the judge makes the critical factual findings that raise the authorized maximum sentence from life to death.
- Sixth Amendment analysis does not depend on labels; the controlling question is whether judge factfinding is legally required to impose a greater punishment than the jury’s verdict alone authorizes.

## Conclusion

The Court held Florida’s then-existing death-penalty procedure unconstitutional because it required the judge to make the findings necessary to increase the authorized maximum sentence from life imprisonment to death, which the Sixth Amendment reserves to the jury.


Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016)