Whether Petitioner's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when he was subjected to an increased maximum sentence based on the trial court's finding that his past offenses were committed on separate occasions

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner was adjudicated a “habitual criminal” under state law, subjecting him to an increased maximum sentence, based on a finding by the trial judge—not the jury—that his prior convictions arose from separate and distinct criminal episodes. After the court below affirmed, this Court held that “the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury” to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether “a defendant’s past offenses were committed on separate occasions” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Erlinger v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1840, 1846 (2024). The question presented is: Whether Petitioner’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when he was subjected to an increased maximum sentence based on the trial court’s finding that his past offenses were committed on separate occasions.