COURT: GUNS CAN LENGTHEN SENTENCE

The Supreme Court Upholds A North Carolina Sentence, Saying Judges Can
Decide Whether Defendants Used Guns In Their Crimes.

WASHINGTON - A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that judges
can lengthen the prison sentences of people who use guns while committing
other crimes, even if they had not been convicted of, or charged with, a
weapons violation.

With the 5-4 decision in a North Carolina case, the justices avoided a
ruling that could have upset prison sentences of thousands of inmates
nationwide and put in doubt sentencing laws in almost every state.

At issue was federal prosecutors' practice of winning convictions for
federal crimes such as drug dealing, then having a judge consider stiffer
sentences because weapons were involved.

The Supreme Court said judges can decide whether defendants used guns in
their crimes, using a lower proof standard than juries. And the defendants
need not have been charged with a gun crime.

The case, involving former pawn shop operator William Joseph Harris of
Albemarle, near Charlotte, had called into question mandatory minimum
sentences nationwide. The circumstances of a crime dictate the lowest
sentence a judge can give.

Every state has some type of minimum sentencing system, and 24 states had
urged the Supreme Court to rule as it did.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said "not all facts
affecting the defendant's punishment are elements" of the crime, which must
be proved to a jury. He said Harris' case instead involved a sentencing
factor, which did not increase his maximum possible penalty.

"These facts, though stigmatizing and punitive, have been the traditional
domain of judges," Kennedy wrote.

The justices upheld the judge's sentence of Harris, who pleaded guilty in
1999 to selling marijuana out of his shop. He was wearing a pistol in a hip
holster, his usual store practice.

Because of the weapon, a federal trial judge said Harris was guilty of
brandishing a gun while engaged in drug trafficking and gave him the
Congress-mandated minimum sentence of seven years in prison. Harris'
original recommended sentence for the drug crime was zero to six months.
The Supreme Court ruled two years ago in a case called Apprendi that
allegations that bring harsher penalties must be charged in an indictment
and proved to a jury.

Writing for the four dissenters in Harris' case, Justice Clarence Thomas
said the logic of the Apprendi case should require that circumstances
raising the minimum possible penalty also should be charged and proved.

"Whether one raises the floor or raises the ceiling, it is impossible to
dispute that the defendant is exposed to greater punishment than is
otherwise prescribed," he wrote.

Harris' case arose from a federal prosecution for a violation of federal
drug law, not a state law. And the court's decision does not establish new
sentencing rules.

Margaret "Peg" Dorer, director of the N.C. Conference of District
Attorneys, said she wasn't sure what effect the ruling would have on state law.

Noelle Taylor, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Roy A. Cooper III, said
the state Justice Department's staff lawyers had not had time to determine
how the ruling would affect state sentencing in North Carolina.