Whether Petitioner's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was subject to an increased standard sentence based on the trial court's factual findings that the conduct underlying his out-of-state convictions would violate a comparable in-state offense

A court — not a jury — found the conduct underlying the Petitioner’s out-of-state convictions would trigger criminal culpability under a comparable in-state statute. Under state law, the court’s finding, made only by a preponderance of the evidence, increased the standard sentence for the Petitioner. Before the court below affirmed, this Court reaffirmed that prior conviction exception to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments’ jury trial guarantee allows a sentencing judge to “do no more... than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.” Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S, 821 (2024) (ACCA). But the court below concluded Erlinger did not apply to the state court proceeding. The question presented is: ' Whether Petitioner's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was subject to an increased standard sentence based on the trial court’s factual findings that the conduct ; underlying his out-of-state convictions would violate a comparable in-state offense.