In Alleyne v. United States, decided recently, the Court overturned the 2002 controlling precedent (Harris v. United States) and held that any “fact” that triggers a statutory mandatory minimum sentences — and thus effectively increases a sentence by setting a “floor” – is an “element” of the offense. That “fact” must be submitted to a jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt or, in the alternative, admitted by the defendant. It cannot be determined merely by the judge. Whether Alleyne applies retroactively to those whose convictions were final when the case was decided, remains to be seen. But it will be an uphill battle.
The ruling would also apply likewise to sentences that were imposed when the guidelines were found by a judge and were mandatory. The lower range of the judge-determined guideline was tantamount to the “floor” referred to in Alleyne. After all, what is the difference between a law that is required to be followed (mandatory minimum) and a guideline that is required to be followed? Given the court’s rejection of retroactivity in Booker, it is unlikely that Alleyne will be retroactive.