NCJ Number
191148
Journal
Corrections Compendium Volume: 26 Issue: 8 Dated: August 2001 Pages: 1-3,20,21
Date Published
August 2001
Length
5 pages
Annotation
This analysis of the United States Supreme Court decision in Apprendi v. NJ. on June 26, 2000, focused on the implications of this decision for hate crime legislation and for law enforcement, courts, sentencing, and corrections.
Abstract
Police arrested Apprendi in Vineland, NJ, for firing several shots into the home of his Black neighbors. He said that he did not want them in his neighborhood because of their race. He received a sentence for second-degree possession of a firearm for unlawful purposes. The court did not refer to the State’s hate crime law, which provided for an enhanced sentence. Apprendi pleaded guilty and the prosecutor filed a motion for sentence enhancement. Apprendi received a 12-year prison sentence as a result. The appeals court upheld the original decision. However, the Supreme Court held that any fact that increased the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum, other than prior conviction, must be submitted to a jury and be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court’s opinion paired the two most conservative justices with the three most liberal members. Apprendi asks that the police officer determine motivation. The Apprendi decision will also reduce the processing of hate crimes and the number of sentencing enhancements. The result will probably be a decrease in the number of inmates and State and Federal funding that flows from inmate counts. In addition, the shift of power in sentencing from judge to jury may have long-term implications for legislative sentencing reforms. The analysis concluded that about half the States followed the same sentencing guidelines as New Jersey and must therefore revise their hate crime sentencing provisions and processes, that thousands of appeals will be filed under the Apprendi doctrine in areas of hate crime and three-strikes sentencing, and that the Supreme Court will need to resolve further conflicts in the interpretation of Apprendi. 25 references