## Facts

- Pennsylvania’s Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Act required a five-year minimum prison term for certain felonies if the sentencing judge found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant visibly possessed a firearm during the offense.
- The Act stated that visible firearm possession “shall not be an element of the crime” and did not authorize a sentence above the statutory maximum for the underlying felony.
- Multiple defendants were convicted of enumerated felonies; the Commonwealth provided notice it would seek application of the Act at sentencing.
- Trial judges ruled the Act unconstitutional and imposed sentences below the five-year minimum.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court consolidated the Commonwealth’s appeals, vacated the sentences, and remanded for resentencing under the Act, holding it consistent with due process.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the Act’s allocation of factfinding and burden of proof violated constitutional requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether visible firearm possession could be treated as a sentencing factor determined by a judge, rather than an offense element requiring jury submission and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether due process required proof of visible firearm possession at sentencing by a higher standard than preponderance of the evidence.
3. Whether the Constitution required jury determination of the fact triggering the mandatory minimum sentence.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and upheld the Act.
- Pennsylvania could treat visible firearm possession as a sentencing factor that applies only after conviction of the underlying felony beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Requiring proof by a preponderance of the evidence for the sentencing factor did not violate due process.
- The Act did not create a separate offense or increase the statutory maximum; it raised only the minimum sentence within the authorized range for the conviction.
- The Constitution did not require submission to the jury of every fact that affects sentencing once the elements of the offense have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- A State may define certain facts affecting punishment as sentencing factors, not elements, when they operate within the statutory maximum and do not create a separate offense.
- The reasonable-doubt requirement applies to facts necessary to constitute the offense of conviction; it does not automatically extend to post-conviction sentencing determinations labeled and structured as sentencing factors.
- Due process does not require a heightened burden (such as clear and convincing evidence) for a sentencing factor that establishes a mandatory minimum within an existing statutory range.
- Judicial factfinding at sentencing on such factors is constitutionally permissible where the defendant has been convicted of all offense elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Pennsylvania’s mandatory minimum scheme could constitutionally rely on a judge’s preponderance finding of visible firearm possession because the fact was a sentencing factor that raised only the minimum sentence, did not increase the statutory maximum, and did not alter the elements required for conviction.


McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986)