Harris v. United States

Summary

The Court affirmed Harris's sentence, holding that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) defines a single offense and treats brandishing and discharging a firearm as sentencing factors rather than offense elements. Reaffirming McMillan, the Court held that a judge could find brandishing and thereby increase the mandatory minimum without requiring its allegation in the indictment or proof to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Kennedy's opinion commanded five votes in Parts I, II, and IV, but only four in Part III, which distinguished facts increasing a mandatory minimum from facts increasing the statutory maximum. O'Connor separately concurred without additional joiners, maintaining her disagreement with Jones and Apprendi while joining Kennedy's entire opinion. Breyer concurred in part and in the judgment without additional joiners; he rejected the plurality's logical distinction from Apprendi but continued to oppose Apprendi and its extension to mandatory minimums. Thomas dissented, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, arguing that facts increasing either end of the statutory sentencing range require constitutional safeguards; he would overrule McMillan and reverse.