Whether a state sentencing judge's explicit consideration of conduct for which a defendant was acquitted violates the defendant's rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments when the resulting sentence falls within the statutory range for the crimes of conviction

No question identified. : TO THE HONORABLE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE AND CIRCUIT JUSTICE FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT: 1. Pursuant to Rule 13.5 of this Court, petitioner, Richard Langston, respectfully requests a sixty day extension of time, up to and including November 3, 2023, within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut for review of its judgment in this case. The Supreme Court of Connecticut filed its opinion in petitioner’s appeal on June 6, 2023. Unless extended, the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari will expire on September 4, 2023. The deadline for filing an application for extension of time to file a petition for writ of certiorari absent exceptional circumstances will expire on August 25, 2023. 2. A copy of the Supreme Court of Connecticut’s opinion is attached as Exhibit A. The jurisdiction of this Court will be invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257. 3. Following a jury trial, petitioner was convicted of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a firearm under Connecticut’s criminal statutes, and acquitted of assault in the first degree. Ex. A, 610. During petitioner’s sentencing, the prosecutor requested that the sentencing judge find that petitioner committed the assault for which he was acquitted and consider that finding during the sentencing. Id. In explaining the rationale for the twenty-five year sentence imposed for the charges on which petitioner was convicted, the sentencing judge expounded at length on his view that petitioner had in fact assaulted the victim by shooting him and discussed in detail the profound detrimental effects of the assault on the victim’s life. Id., 610-11. The sentencing judge thus engaged in what is known as “acquitted-conduct sentencing.” See McClinton v. United States, 148 S. Ct. 2400, 2401 n.1 (2023) (statement of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR denying certiorari). 4. Petitioner filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming, inter alia, that the sentencing court violated his rights to jury trial and due process under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Ex. A, 611. The trial court denied his motion. Id., 612. Petitioner’s appeal to Connecticut’s Appellate Court was transferred to the state Supreme Court, where petitioner renewed his federal constitutional claims. Id., 612-13. 5. The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the trial court’s denial of petitioner’s motion to correct illegal sentence. Id., 641-42. The court observed that “sentencing judges should undertake every effort to refrain from basing a sentence on facts that case doubt . . . on any aspect of the jury’s verdict,” because “[t]his practice undermines many of our foundational principles regarding the critical role of the jury in our system of justice and the trust we place in the jury’s verdict.” Id., 639. The court nevertheless concluded that petitioner’s rights under the federal constitution were not violated because the sentence imposed was within the statutory ranges for the offenses on which petitioner was convicted. Id., 623. (The court also denied relief under Connecticut’s constitution.) 6. The use of acquitted-conduct sentencing “raises important questions that go to the fairness and perceived fairness of the criminal justice system.” McClinton, supra, 143 8.Ct. 2401 (statement of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR). It also “raises questions about the public's perception that justice is being done, a concern that is vital to the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Various jurists have observed that the woman on the street would be quite taken aback to learn about this practice.” Id., 2402-03. 7. Nevertheless, this Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in McClinton on the basis that the federal Sentencing Commission plans to resolve questions around acquitted-conduct sentencing in the coming year. Id., 2403 (statements of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH). 8. Connecticut’s state crim