Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Peregrina

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided September 7, 2011No. 37900Published

1DissentJustice W. Jones

The Majority holds that there was no error under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because I.C. § 19-2520E only reduces the punishment authorized. I respectfully dissent.

A. Because the Fact of Divisibility Increases the Maximum Authorized Statutory Penalty By Authorizing a Second Enhancement, There Was Apprendi Error in the State’s Failure to Submit the Issue to the Jury.

It is undisputed that the question of divisibility or indivisibility under I.C. § 19-2520E is one of fact. State v. Johns, 112 Idaho 873, 882,…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. United States v. OlanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  5. Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999

11 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