Since 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court has raised serious doubts about the constitutionality of many state sentencing guidelines, holding that other than a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be tried before a jury (Apprendi v. New Jersey, 2000). Based on this reasoning, in 2004 the Court struck down sentencing guidelines in the State of Washington, holding that the Sixth Amendment gives juries (and not judges) the power to make a finding of fact beyond a reasonable doubt (Blakely v. Washington, 2004). The dissenters argued that the decision will serve only to increase judicial discretion and lead to less uniformity in sentencing, perhaps leading to increasing racial discrimination.
-Failure to submit a sentencing factor to a jury is subject to what kind of review?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

When a sentencing factor is not submitted to the jury it is considered an error, but if the error does not affect the outcome of the sentence, then it is considered harmless and does not require a reversal. Therefore, the review would be set to harmless error review.