SENTENCES INCREASED BY JUDGES UPHELD

WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that judges may stiffen
the minimum sentences defendants receive even in cases where the jury did
not find the facts upon which the tougher penalty is based.

The decision upholds thousands of sentences imposed under state and federal
"mandatory minimum" laws.

Narrowing the impact of a landmark 2000 ruling that affirmed the right to a
jury trial on any fact that could increase a maximum sentence, five
justices voted to uphold an N.C. drug dealer's sentence under a federal
drug law that assigns more prison time for crimes committed with a gun.

The law is constitutional, they said, because it could be read as
separating sentencing "factors," which may be determined by a judge, from
elements of the crime itself, which must be found by the jury.

The case decided Monday arose from the prosecution and conviction of former
Albemarle pawnshop owner William Joseph Harris. He was sentenced by a
federal judge to seven years for selling drugs, after the judge, employing
a lower standard of proof than a jury would have, found that Harris had
"brandished" a gun during the drug deal.

The government's indictment did not charge Harris with brandishing the
weapon. That evidence was introduced at the sentencing hearing.

Under the relevant federal statute, Harris could have received a minimum
sentence of five years without the finding that he brandished the weapon.

U.S. Attorney Bob Conrad, the top federal prosecutor in the Western
District of North Carolina, said the Supreme Court made the right decision.
"An aggravating factor is one for the judge, not the jury," he said.

Charlotte defense attorney Lyle Yurko believes the Harris decision gives
judges the right to exercise their judgment within existing constraints.

Neither Yurko nor Conrad believes the decision represents a chipping away
of a citizen's right to a jury trial.

"This won't change the way sentencing is conducted in North Carolina,"
Yurko said.

Four of the five -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day
O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy -- endorsed the broader claim
that, as Kennedy put it in an opinion announcing the ruling, there is a
"fundamental distinction" between setting the minimum punishment someone
must face within a range defined by law and finding special factors that
would enhance a sentence beyond the prescribed maximum. For this reason,
Kennedy wrote, "(j)udicial factfinding ... does not implicate" the
constitutional right enshrined in the 2000 case, Apprendi vs. New Jersey.

Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal and the fifth vote, balked at that
holding, however..

Four justices -- John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and Clarence Thomas -- dissented.