Whether an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment based solely on the findings of a court, no matter how they label the fact, must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1, TeaStabke males an increase in a delertauk'’s ovthorired Auvishment oy <table Cawtengent ow the Cndings of Cart no matter ow Wey laloel the fact, doos that Lack have bo he Cound by a yun, heyond & featonable dovlt Ld otk any a ddiikonal Crndingg y 4 DUT cerns lO wears Marion lekas, DTheTexas Cock aofaminal Agpaat, has copeatedly held thet Yee dastact Clerk's poly of ce fainy franscipts behind Tex. Govt Lode Aw S82. 078 as juskh cakiew to Aang” atles bo He Laurtks Does % years iu dawral male valid pokikieners Claim that deprivation of He Hanscciats Prevented Aowionchvration et facts if Fairly presewted, cov have oVbaiued coliet ¢ %. Does the trial courts Calure bo comply Ww Rule Wh) of federal cule of crwinal Proceduces Funda menkably ivpare the Rirness ot no +vial bo thea. level of oust butionally Lailing to Provide tha Shuubard Zek Lorin oy Congress ¢ uf Does the AreKoL.xwC'S Bialuce bo force ck Lesh Mony iat We Know, or should Wave Known, Since We Wad the police tewort and freee (av0e tuyplementy ot he failed to corect it. Cow Salso testimony and false evidewe he ded bo olobain a Lowvict ou abe ae due process Clays VS Const. amend EBL 2 5. We teSpondont clas Huot duving Hue habeas proceeding dytal casusel Ren Raber thovoughily resgonded to Thble’s allegatovsin an affidavit Wo mention of the vntimel Filing. Rebhoner sv i) tne DS, desteiat Lov} with a eter Frown Ae cleric Gating tut she stows wo hearing ow day docllet? Every sentence except one w the eurice attrdoyit ‘was dwell tne the Srate's 100551 How awd they let Leak ane <onbenco oN. Sor the Desh ydiaqengh of yugeZ, lect Kewkence valtdéckes no euidenete sustain 4 Dead ly LUeGPol Liudinge So why % Beker silent aS a mause iv ZOUCT ad 4o this vita evidence th favor of petiltoner? Tac?