Should the rule of Apprendi apply to the imposition of criminal restitution?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), the Court held that “fo]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.” Subsequently, in Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343, 360 (2012), the Court held “that the rule of Apprendi applies to the imposition of criminal fines.” The Court based this holding, in large part, because under the common law criminal fines were pegged to facts charged in an indictment and proven to a jury. See id. at 353-56. Despite the fact that the historical record with respect to requiring jury findings to support criminal fines and criminal restitution are the same, and that restitution is part of a criminal sentence, the circuit courts have all declined to apply the rule of Apprendi (and Southern Union) to criminal restitution. The question presented is: should the rule of Apprendi apply to the imposition of criminal restitution? INTERESTED PARTIES There are no