159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). The Court held: Our precedents make clear ... that the “statutory maximum” for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. In other words, the relevant “statutory maximum” is not the maximum sentence a judge may impose after finding additional facts, but the maximum he may impose without any additional findings. Id. at 303-04, 124 S.Ct. at 2537, 159 L.Ed.2d at 413-14 (citations omitted). Thus, if a defendant’s authorized punishment may be increased upon the finding of a fact, that fact — “no matter how the State labels it” — is treated as an element of the crime for constitutional purposes. Ring, 536 U.S. at 602, 122 S.Ct. at 2439, 153 L.Ed.2d at 572 (<HOLDING>); accord United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220,
holding facts that increase the maximum penalty for a crime must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding 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 holding that under the sixth amendment any fact which increases the penalty for a crime  eg by triggering a mandatory minimum sentence must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt holding that if the imposition of the death penalty depends on the existence of aggravating factors a jury must find those factors beyond a reasonable doubt holding factual finding authorizing death penalty must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt