March 10, 2005
More reasons Smylie made me smile
There is a lot to say about yesterday's Blakely work by Indiana Supreme Court in its Smylie decision (basics here). Thanks to The Indiana Law Blog's coverage here, I can link to press stories about Smylie from the Indianapolis Star and the AP. In addition, Michael Ausbrook at INCourts has interesting posts covering Smylie here and here .
Though Smylie is of particular concern for Indiana lawyers, this comment spotlights that it could be a very significant precedent for other state courts working through a range of Blakely issues. Though I will need subsequent posts to discuss the intriguing jurisprudential aspects of Smylie, I wanted first to spotlight the two amusingly snarky comments in the Smylie court's discussion of the Supreme Court's work in Blakely:
1. Early on in describing Blakely, the Smylie court states: "While many who read Apprendi deduced that 'statutory maximum' meant 'statutory maximum,' the Blakely majority chose to define it as 'the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant.'"
2. After fully explaining Blakely, the Smylie court states: "Whether [Blakely] represents sound jurisprudence or policy is of no moment for us under the Supremacy Clause, and we cannot see any grounds for sustaining Indiana's sentencing scheme given the Blakely holding."
March 10, 2005 at 09:29 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More reasons Smylie made me smile: