October Term 2006 · Docket 05-9222
Does a prior conviction require a new fact finding for consecutive sentences?
The dispute centers on whether judges need a jury to find new facts before imposing consecutive sentences based on prior convictions.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Fisher argued that the case requires a new fact finding.
Mr. Collins argued that the petition is barred as a successive filing.
Mr. Roberts argued that reasonable jurists could distinguish between Apprendi and Blakely.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 23-3 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 23-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-39
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. It asks if a judge can impose consecutive sentences using only prior convictions without a new jury finding.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 23-3 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 23-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 51-7
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 7, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to require a jury to find new facts before imposing consecutive sentences.
the opposing side wants the Court to allow judges to impose consecutive sentences based solely on prior convictions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 23-3 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 23-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 51-7
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that consecutive sentences require a new jury finding of fact under the Sixth Amendment.
the opposing side argues that prior convictions are sufficient to justify consecutive sentences without a new jury finding.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 23-3 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 23-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 51-7
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked if the rule applies to this specific case despite other examples.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if enhanced sentences for prior convictions violate Blakely principles.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-39
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of judicial sentencing power. It determines whether judges can rely on prior convictions to increase sentences. The outcome shapes the balance between judicial discretion and jury rights in criminal sentencing.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 23-3 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 23-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 51-7
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 9-15 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 9-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 49-27 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 49-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 3-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 3-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-41 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-39
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 23-3 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 23-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 23-3 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 23-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 51-7
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.