« AG Ashcroft resigns | Main | Lots of morning sentencing news »

November 9, 2004

Nationwide Blakely developments in the states

Though today's non-arrival of Booker and Fanfan keeps the federal Blakely story on hold, the state Blakely stories continue to develop at a fast and furious pace: 

  • Michael Ausbrook has a long and thoughtful post here on recent decisions from Indiana which may presage what the Indiana Supreme Court might do with the Blakely cases it is considering tomorrow. And, in the Indiana intermediate appellate courts, a decision today, Teeters v. State, 2004 WL 2521386 (Ind. App. Nov. 09, 2004), relies on the "prior conviction" exception and other means to affirm a sentence over Blakely objections.

  • The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission details here its plans for a meeting next month "to consider proposed modifications to the sentencing guidelines and commentary resulting from the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Blakely v. Washington." The proposed modifications include "changes to the procedures for imposing aggravated departures, modifications to the consecutive sentencing provisions, modification to the sentencing grid and proposed ranking of unranked offenses."

  • The Delaware Sentencing Accountability Commission has here (scroll down) a brief discussion of the Delaware Supreme Court's decision in Fuller v. State, No. 38 (Del. Oct. 29, 2004), which seems to indirectly suggest that Blakely may not be applicable to Delaware's voluntary sentencing guidelines.

  • And, of course, California's appellate courts keep hashing out Blakely with now 137 Blakely-related opinions on-line. (Many of the most significant rulings are summarized here by the First Disrict Appellate Project in California.)

November 9, 2004 at 10:15 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200d8346aeaf669e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nationwide Blakely developments in the states:

Comments

That's out of 861 Blakely decisions nationally as reported by Lexis moments ago. (date > 6/24/04 and blakely pre/2 washington). So I don't know that that's out of proportion to California's population or case load, depending on how you want to count.

Posted by: Michael Ausbrook | Nov 9, 2004 10:55:31 PM

I HAVE A FRIEND IN THE OHIO
REFORMATORY FOR WOMEN. HER CASE MIRRORS
THE BLAKEY RULING. WHAT DO SHE HAVE
TO DO TO GET BACK IN COURT?

Posted by: RALPH JONES | Nov 10, 2004 3:26:30 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB