February 20, 2007
Lots of Cunningham GVRs
Unsurprisingly, today's SCOTUS order list (available here) includes a whole bunch of Cunningham GVRs for case from California. In addition, as previewed here, the Court also dealt with the Gomez (the Tennessee Blakely case), and it did so with a GVR.
I am not sure there is much notable in these expected developments, but perhaps more informed readers have more to say about the particulars.
February 20, 2007 at 10:27 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lots of Cunningham GVRs:
Lots of Jones v. Bock GVRs, too, presumably reviving prison conditions suits that were bumped for failure ot exhaust administrative remedies.
Posted by: rothmatisseko | Feb 20, 2007 4:08:44 PM
The GVR's were highly significant. The Court did not just GVR the dozens of cases from California and the two cases from Tennessee (the Gomez case was one of them), but it also issued a GVR in light of Cunningham in cases out of three other states: Hawaii, New Mexico and Michigan. A quick review of the sentencing schemes in those states reveal that at least two of them (Hawaii and New Mexico) are not similar to the California sentencing scheme. Thus, the Supreme Court is indicating, once again, that the state courts need to take the Apprendi bright-line rule seriously. This seems highly significant to me.
Posted by: jk | Feb 21, 2007 11:52:50 AM
As a prospective Cunningham petitioner I await judgement from the Central District Court, I was at first denied then today reversed to hear the case. Im sure to be one of the if not the first to be in Federal Court on a Cunningham defense.
Posted by: Rcon1 | Feb 23, 2007 1:40:59 PM