Clarifying Apprendi: How Erlinger v. United States Reinforces Sixth Amendment Protections in Sentencing

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), has reaffirmed and clarified a crucial constitutional principle first established in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). This ruling directly impacts how courts determine sentencing enhancements and serves as a significant victory for defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights.

Apprendi and Its Long-Standing Influence

In Apprendi, the Supreme Court held that any fact—other than a prior conviction—that increases a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in the years following Apprendi, courts have grappled with its application, particularly in cases involving sentencing enhancements based on judicial fact-finding.

One key issue has been whether judges can determine if prior offenses occurred on “separate occasions” for sentencing purposes, particularly under statutes like the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which imposes significantly enhanced penalties based on a defendant’s criminal history.

How Erlinger v. United States Reinforces the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi

The Supreme Court in Erlinger addressed this precise issue, ruling that the determination of whether prior offenses occurred on “separate occasions” under the ACCA is a factual question that must be decided by a jury—not a judge. This decision reinforces the core principle of Apprendi: a judge’s fact-finding cannot be the basis for increasing a defendant’s sentence if it goes beyond simply recognizing a prior conviction and its established elements.

Why Erlinger Matters Beyond Federal Courtrooms

While Erlinger specifically pertains to the federal ACCA, its implications extend far beyond federal sentencing. The ruling strengthens Sixth Amendment protections applicable to state sentencing schemes as well, as the Sixth Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Many state sentencing laws allow judges to make factual findings that lead to enhanced sentences. Erlinger casts doubt on the constitutionality of such practices, opening the door for new legal challenges. This is the very fact Judge Tanenbaum made clear about the Florida Prison Releasee Reoffender Act in his concurring opinion in Hill v. State, No. 1D2023-2147, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 1520 (1st DCA Feb. 26, 2025), when he stated, "Hill does not argue this on appeal, but imposition of a PRR sentence, originally or after revocation—without a jury determination of the qualifying facts beyond a reasonable doubt—might also now be constitutionally dubious. Cf. Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 834-35, 144 S. Ct. 1840, 219 L. Ed. 2d 451 (2024) (requiring a jury determination of sentencing enhancement facts that go beyond just whether the prior offenses were committed)."

The United States Supreme Court decides the landmark case on Erlinger v. United States on June 21, 2024.

Key Takeaways for Legal Practitioners

✔ State Sentencing Schemes Are Under Scrutiny – If a state’s sentencing framework permits judges to make factual findings that substantially extend the length or mandatory portion of a defendant’s sentence under the guise of recognizing prior

convictions, it may now be vulnerable to constitutional challenges.

✔ Defense Attorneys Have a New Argument – In cases where sentencing enhancements depend on judicial fact-finding that extends beyond the mere existence of a prior conviction, Erlinger provides a powerful Sixth Amendment argument for challenging such enhancements.

✔ The Jury’s Role Continues to Expand – The ruling solidifies the principle that juries—not judges—must determine facts that lead to an increased sentence beyond what the statute prescribes.

Conclusion

With Erlinger, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fundamental constitutional protection first articulated in Apprendi: sentencing enhancements based on factual determinations must be made by a jury, not a judge, and found beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision ensures that defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights remain intact and underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to uphold these protections in both federal and state courts.

Legal practitioners, especially those handling sentencing enhancements, should closely examine Erlinger and its potential to reshape sentencing challenges in both federal and state jurisdictions.