(b) Florida’s counterarguments are rejected. He also wrote that Arizona's sentencing scheme is much different than Florida's because under the former, a jury plays no role in the process. P. 10. 212. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Florida requires not the jury but a judge to make the critical findings necessary to impose the death penalty. In Ring, we held that another pre-Apprendi decision—Walton, 497 U. S. 639—could not “survive the reasoning of Apprendi.” 536 U. S., at 603. The Court had little difficulty concluding that “ ‘the required finding of an aggravated circumstance exposed Ring to a greater punishment than that authorized by the jury’s guilty verdict.’ ” Id., at 604 (quoting Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 494; alterations omitted). Id., at 271. However, he agreed with striking Florida's scheme, referring back to Justice John Paul Stevens' concurring opinion in Spaziano, among others, that he believes that any imposition of the death penalty by a single government official instead of a jury violates the Eighth Amendment. The sentencing judge instructed the advisory jury that it could recommend a death sentence if it found at least one aggravating circumstance beyond a reason- able doubt: that the murder was especially “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” or that it occurred while Hurst was committing a robbery. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. 4–10. See 819 So. Ring, supra, at 592–593. Sonia Sotomayor: This case comes to us from the Supreme Court of Florida.

It will enhance any encyclopedic page you visit with the magic of the WIKI 2 technology. There, this Court stated that under Apprendi, a judge may impose any sentence authorized “on the basis of the facts . An Arizona jury had convicted Timothy Ring of felony murder. Nor did the jury find the presence of any aggravating factor, as required for death eligibility under Arizona law. The additional sentencing proceeding Florida employs is a “hybrid” proceeding “in which [a] jury renders an advisory verdict but the judge makes the ultimate sentencing determinations.” Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584, 608, n. 6 (2002). Hurst responded with an alibi defense. To install click the Add extension button. 497 U. S., at 648.

Pp. .

SC12–1947 (Fla.), p. 24 (“not challeng[ing] the trial court’s findings” but arguing that death was nevertheless a disproportionate punishment).

It was unclear how many might receive new re-sentencing hearings as a result of this decision. 4–6. Before overruling Hildwin and Spaziano, I would reconsider the cases, including most prominently Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584 (2002), on which the Court now relies.

At the close of Hurst’s defense, the judge instructed the jury that it could find Hurst guilty of first-degree murder under two theories: premeditated murder or felony murder for an unlawful killing during a robbery.

The Court now reverses course, striking down Florida’s capital sentencing system, overruling our decisions in Hildwin and Spaziano, and holding that the Sixth Amendment does require that the specific findings authorizing a sentence of death be made by a jury. §782.04(1)(a) (2010). 505–507. “In a comparable situation,” the Florida court reasoned, “the United States Supreme Court held: ‘If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the [other courts] should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’ ” Bottoson, 833 So. The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. . In Ring, the jury found the defendant guilty of felony murder and did no more. . §921.141(2). 3d, at 446–447 (case below). In Florida, under a 2013 statute, the jury made recommendations but the judge decided the facts. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 494.

The murder of Ms. Harrison was conscienceless, pitiless, and unnecessarily  torturous.” Id., at 261–262.

. As in that case, however, I concur in the judgment here based on my view that “the Eighth Amendment requires that a jury, not a judge, make the decision to sentence a defendant to death.” Id., at 614; see id., at 618 (“[T]he danger of unwarranted imposition of the [death] penalty cannot be avoided unless ‘the decision to impose the death penalty is made by a jury rather than by a single government official’ ” (quoting Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 469 (1984) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part))). Id., at 261–263. Florida argues that this case is different because a jury recommended that Hurst receive a death sentence, but Florida fails to appreciate the central role its law gives a judge. HAVEN’T FOUND ESSAY YOU WANT?

At the conclusion of this separate sentencing hearing, the jury may recommend a death sentence only if it finds that the State has proved one or more aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt and only after weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors. As relevant here, the court rejected Hurst’s argument that his sentence violated the Sixth Amendment in light of Ring, 536 U. S. 584. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, does the Florida death sentencing scheme, which does not require a jury to determine whether a capital defendant is mentally retarded or to unanimously sentence a defendant to death, violate the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee or the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? We now expressly overrule Spaziano and Hildwin in relevant part. Nor did it consider mitigating factors. The victim, Cynthia Harrison, an assistant manager of a Popeye’s restaurant, arrived at work between 7 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on the date of her death. The State fails to appreciate the central and singular role the judge plays under Florida law.

He may be sentenced to death only if an additional sentencing proceeding "results in findings by the court that such person shall be punished by death" (Fla. Stat. . At resentencing, the jury again recommended death, and the judge again found the facts necessary to sentence Hurst to death. 3d 435, reversed and remanded. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. The Sixth Amendment protects a defendant’s right to an impartial jury. In light of this evidence, it defies belief to suggest that the jury would not have found the existence of either aggravating factor if its finding was binding. Held: Florida’s capital sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment in light of Ring. We hold that it does, and reverse.

In that proceeding, the sentencing judge first conducts an evidentiary hearing before a jury (§921.141(1)). Justice Breyer, concurring in the judgment. Words are inadequate to describe this death, but the photographs introduced as evidence depict a person bound, rendered helpless, and brutally, savagely, and unmercifully slashed and disfigured. . The Florida Supreme Court affirmed 4 to 3. The Supreme Court of Florida had previously held that the decision in Ring v. Arizona did not apply to Florida’s death penalty sentencing scheme generally and specifically did not require that a jury’s recommendation of the death penalty be unanimous or that a jury determine the factual issue of a defendant’s potential mental retardation. Timothy Lee Hurst.

§921.141(2). Reaching this conclusion requires us to confront two cases from the 1980s, Hildwin versus Florida and Spaziano versus Florida in which we upheld Florida's capital sentencing scheme. Specifically, a judge could sentence Ring to death only after independently finding at least one aggravating circumstance. (4) The State’s assertion that any error was harmless is not addressed here, where there is no reason to depart from the Court’s normal pattern of leaving such considerations to state courts. List of death row inmates in the United States, "Gov. Ring’s death sentence therefore violated his right to have a jury find the facts behind his punishment.