August 17, 2004
Blakely news from Oregon
Just after complaining about slowed media coverage of Blakely earlier today, out comes this terrifically informative article in today's The Oregonian appropriately titled "Confusion reigns in federal, state courts."
The article does not break a lot of new ground in covering the federal sentencing story — though it does note that some local federal prosecutors "are reindicting some defendants in cases in which they plan to ask for longer sentences" and "have asked for juries to be impaneled to decide the sentencing in three cases." Most eye-opening, however, are these passages covering what Blakely means for state sentencing in Oregon:
In state court, Salem defense lawyer Jesse Barton, who has written manuals about the state sentencing system, said the implications for Oregon are "absolutely enormous." He said Blakely particularly affects cases in which judges determine during sentencing that the facts in a case make a defendant a "dangerous offender" — a classification that comes with a longer sentence.
It also could affect cases in which a person is convicted of multiple crimes and the judge, based on the facts in the case, hands down sentences that run consecutively instead of concurrently. Barton said he is already handling a half-dozen appeals for inmates convicted in state court. In those cases, judges added time to sentences based on the circumstances of their crimes. "There are hundreds of guys in prison right now doing unconstitutional sentences under Blakely — hundreds, maybe thousands," Barton said.
Although Blakely is not likely to have a significant impact on the most serious crimes, such as the violent person-to-person offenses that fall under Measure 11, state prosecutors said it may impact the way serious property crimes are handled.
August 17, 2004 at 01:29 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Blakely news from Oregon:
Can anyone think of states that have guidelines systems which differentiate only (or primarily) based on the offender's statute of conviction and criminal history?
I know Washington is one. I am trying to generate evidence that the federal system could protect the value of proprotional sentencing (could sentence differently situated offenders differently) even if every defendant was sentenced to his or her base offense level. This is part of an argument in favor of severability-- that "truncated" sentencing could meet congressional values in enacting the SRA.
Posted by: Joel Page | Aug 18, 2004 9:03:34 PM
A CHILD 18 YEARS OF AGE. NO CRIMMINAL BACKGROUND( NEVER BEEN IN TROUBLE). WAS ACCUSED OF TOUCHING HIS STEP SISTER WHEN HE WAS UNDER 18 YEARS OLD.
WHAT CAN HAPPEN?
HOW CAN WE HELP HIM ( WE BELIEVE HIM TO BE INNOCENT)
Posted by: LAURIE | Mar 22, 2006 11:42:45 AM
My boyfriend is facing a measure 11 that he's not guilty for.Being African American in Oregon can be a conviction in its own. I'm wondering if anyone knows a good defense attorney who will work with us at a budget. Please email if you can help.
Posted by: amber | Aug 8, 2006 6:57:18 PM