Epifanio Leos-Morales v. United States

I. The Sixth Amendment protects a criminal defendant’s right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” In Apprendi v. New Jersey, this Court held that “fact[s] that increase[] the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum” were elements that must be charged in an indictment but carved out an exception for prior convictions. 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). It rooted the general rule in commonlaw historical practices, see id. at 477-83, but relied on an earlier opinion—Almendarez-Torres v. United States—to support the prior-conviction exception, see id. at 489 (citing 523 U.S. 224, 230 (1998)). The first question presented is: Whether the prior-conviction exception from Almendarez-Torres can be squared with the text of the Sixth Amendment’s Notice Clause and the historical practices it codified. II. The text and history are clear. In the Founding Era and immediately afterward, courts, prosecutors, and defendants in England and America treated the fact of a prior conviction necessary to satisfy a statutory recidivism enhancement as an element of an aggravated crime to be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury at trial. The text of the Notice Clause codified this common-law practice. A crime’s “nature” included all allegations necessary to distinguish one statutory offense from another. A prior-conviction allegation served to differentiate between the offense applicable to first-time offenders and the one aimed at recidivists. The second question presented is: Whether, in light of the historical record, Almendarez-Torres should be overruled.