August 24, 2004
More Minnesota remands
As discussed here and here, the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission's "short-term report" about Blakely sought to downplay the overall impact of Blakely on Minnesota state sentencing. And though it may be true that neither Minnesota nor any other state will experience the dramatic disruptions occurring in the federal system, the now regular pattern of Blakely remands from the state intermediate courts in Minnesota reveals that even "small" Blakely disruptions are still disruptive to the regularized administration of justice.
Thus, today we get standard remands in three Minnesota state cases. See State v. Lenear, 2004 WL 1878770 (Minn. App. Aug. 24, 2004); State v. Juenke, 2004 WL 1878797 (Minn. App. Aug. 24, 2004); State v. Krueger, 2004 WL 1878998 (Minn. App., Aug. 24, 2004). There is nothing uniquely consequential about any of these remands, though I could not help but notice that all three cases involved sex offenses and Lenear involved a "quadruple upward durational departure"!
August 24, 2004 at 05:45 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Minnesota remands:
It's hard to figure out what the Minnesota Court of Appeals is up to. In State v. Geiger, 2004 Minn. App. LEXIS 921 (Minn. Ct. App. August 10, 2004) (mem.), Geiger asked for supplemental briefing, and the court said it would be premature to consider the issue before the district court had had its shot. It therefore denied the motion for supplemental briefing but explicitly "preserved" the Blakely issue for post-conviction relief.
On the same day, in State v. Kaufman, 2004 Minn. App. LEXIS 923 (Minn. Ct. App. August 10, 2004) (mem.), another panel, including one judge (Harten) from the Geiger panel, denied the request for supplemental briefing, but remanded for resentencing under Blakely.
Still on the same day, in a published decision, State v. Heath, 2004 Minn. App. LEXIS 939 (Minn Ct. App. August 10, 2004), in an opinion written by the same judge who wrote Kaufman, the court reverses a sentence because of the misapplication of an aggravator. In remanding for resentencing, the court says, essentiall, "And, oh, by the way, consider the application of Blakely on remand."
I'm curious to see these most recent "standard" remands.
Posted by: Michael Ausbrook | Aug 25, 2004 2:26:38 AM