Legal Opinion

State v. Brown

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided March 16, 2006No. CV-05-0263-PRPublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HURWITZ, Justice.

¶ 1 The issue in this case is whether a defendant’s statements during a plea colloquy relieve the State of its obligation under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and its progeny to prove aggravating factors to a jury. We conclude that the Sixth Amendment requires that “any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt,” id. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, unless a defendant has knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  5. Rose v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. People v. FrenchCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  2. State of Arizona v. Manuel Ovante, Jr.Arizona Supreme Court · 2013
  3. People v. IsaacksSupreme Court of Colorado · 2006
  4. State v. MunningerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2006
  5. State v. DettmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API