July 22, 2004
More state Blakely news in Minnesota and elsewhere
After Wednesday was a huge Blakely day in the federal system, it looks like today might be dominated by state news (and particularly by northern states starting with an M). As first reported here, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued the state's first major Blakely ruling ealier this week in the course of overturning a sex offender's 40-year prison sentence. To quote Paul Harvey, here's "the rest of the story":
In State v. Whitley, the Minnesota Court of Appeals holds that the findings of fact under Minnesota's pattern sex-offender statute need now be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. As noted in the very helpful e-mail report to me about the case:
Interestingly, the Court indicates that Apprendi and a Minnesota Supreme Court case called Grossman, and not just Blakely, dictate this result. The remand instruction is cryptic, as Minnesota has no system of sentencing juries or anything of the sort (at least not yet).
In news from states not starting with an M, this well-done article from the Knoxville News-Sentinel reports on a Tennessee decision from an intermediate appellate court which reduce a defendant's sentencing by a year in a child abuse case following Blakely.
July 22, 2004 at 02:15 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More state Blakely news in Minnesota and elsewhere:
FYI. In Ohio, Third District Court of Appeals, State v. Watkins, Case No. CA 2004 0017, I raised, on behalf of Mr. Watkins, the theory behind Blakely v. Washington before Blakely came out. At oral argument, on July 13, 2004, we discussed the impact of Blakely on minimum sentence presumptions in Ohio and on consecutive sentencing in Ohio. If the Third District decides in our favor, the client will have a six-year (2 three's, consecutive) reduced to concurrent three's. consecutive two's, or concurrent two's. We would take anything but concurrent two's up the the Ohio Supreme Court. The Third District might dodge review, however, by reduction to concurrent two's under existing Ohio statutory law. No decision has been posted yet.
Posted by: kenneth rexford | Jul 29, 2004 1:08:15 PM
Watkins, Case No. CA 2004 0017, I raised, on behalf of Mr. Watkins, the theory behind Blakely v. Washington before Blakely came out.
Posted by: Robe de Soirée 2013 | Dec 13, 2012 12:54:21 AM