We now do so once more. ¶8 Striking down a hate crime statute that permitted a defendant to be sentenced beyond the statutory maximum based upon a factual finding made by the trial court, the United States Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey held that, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, 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.” 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000). Whether the fact is labeled an “element” or a “sentencing factor,” the Court explained, is not of consequence. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 494. “[T]he relevant inquiry is one not of form, but of effect— does the required finding expose the def t. 738, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.
holding that facts triggering an elevated sentence under the thenmandatory federal sentencing guidelines must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any fact other than a prior conviction may not be used to enhance a defendants sentence beyond the statutory maximum unless it is 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 facts that increase the maximum sentence a defendant faces must be proven to a jury 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