Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sentencing Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel questions whether judicial factfinding about prior‑conviction dates increased sentence unlawfully
Summary
Defense argued the judge increased the defendant’s minimum sentence by finding dates of prior convictions rather than submitting that fact to a jury, invoking Sixth Amendment precedent and the narrow Almandarez‑Torres exception; the state urged plain‑error review and said the defendant waived the constitutional claim. The court took the matter under advisement.
At oral argument in State of Tennessee v. Elliot Ares, defense counsel argued that the sentencing court improperly increased the defendant’s minimum punishment by engaging in judicial factfinding about the dates of prior convictions rather than submitting those facts to a jury.
Defense counsel Jonathan Parwell framed the issue as a Sixth Amendment problem: “It is essential to things have said to our system that a judge's power to punish is derived and controlled by the jury burden,” he told the court, and he emphasized that “a fact that increases the minimum possible punishment ... has to be found by a jury.” Parwell relied on the Supreme Court's limited prior‑conviction exception (discussed in Almandarez‑Torres and referenced in the transcript as well as a recent decision the argument cited as Erlinger) and urged that the exception must be construed narrowly so that judges may not make other factfinding that increases statutory minimums.
Counsel explained the sentencing facts: the state presented six prior convictions that could have made the defendant a career offender, and the judge asked county officials to clarify whether some convictions occurred on different dates; the judge then concluded the offenses were separate occasions and imposed a 12‑year career‑offender sentence rather than a shorter persistent‑offender range. Defense counsel contended that using post‑conviction inquiries to determine dates is materially different from relying on judgment forms and urged the court to require jury findings or a bifurcated procedure in cases where dates are dispositive.
The panel asked whether the remedy the defense sought would require bifurcation or special interrogatories to juries; counsel said bifurcation would be appropriate unless the legislature changes the procedure. The prosecutor replied that the defendant waived the constitutional challenge at trial and urged the court to review the sentencing claim only for plain error; she also argued the state’s statutory framework and existing Tennessee practice do not clearly require the relief the defense seeks.
The court did not resolve the question at argument and will issue a written decision addressing whether the judge’s post‑conviction date‑finding violated the Sixth Amendment or whether plain‑error review bars relief.
