Alleyne v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 14, 2013 Decided June 17, 2013
Full case name	Allen Ryan Alleyne, Petitioner v. United States
Docket no.	11-9335
Citations	570 U.S. 99 (more) 133 S. Ct. 2151; 186 L. Ed. 2d 314
Opinion announcement	Opinion announcement
Case history
Prior	United States v. Alleyne, 457 F. App'x 348 (4th Cir. 2011)
Holding
Because mandatory minimum sentences increase the penalty for a crime, any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an "element" of the crime that must be submitted to the jury.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Thomas, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan (Parts I, III–B, III–C, and IV); Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan (Parts II and III–A)
Concurrence	Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg, Kagan
Concurrence	Breyer (in part)
Dissent	Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy
Dissent	Alito
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VI
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Harris v. United States (2002)

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that, in line with Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), all facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to and found true by a jury (not merely determined to be true by a judge's discretion). The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.^[1]

Summary of findings

In the original trial, the defendant (Alleyne) was convicted of using or carrying a firearm in a violent crime, which carried a mandatory minimum penalty of five years' imprisonment. However, the mandatory minimum would rise to seven years if the accused were found to have "brandished" the firearm during the crime, and to ten years if he had fired it. In the original trial, the judge (not the jury) determined that Alleyne had probably brandished the firearm during the robbery, which caused the mandatory minimum sentence to rise to seven years (which was the sentence imposed).

The Supreme Court found that the question of whether or not the accused had brandished his weapon during the robbery was not merely a "sentencing factor," which the judge could unilaterally decide, but an "ingredient of the offense," which must be assessed and decided upon by the jury. The Court also expressly overruled Harris v. United States (2002), which had reached a contrary ruling.^[2]