October 18, 2007
The consequences of Cunningham in Hawaii and Tennessee
With so much going on, I have failed to report previously that in the last few weeks the highest courts in both Hawaii and Tennessee have (finally) recognized that they have to live in Apprendi-land. Specifically, recognizing the impact and import of the Supreme Court's ruling in Cunningham (which applied Blakely to California's structured sentencing system), the Supreme Courts of Hawaii and Tennessee have both recently held that their states' mandatory sentencing schemes create Sixth Amendment problems.
These recent rulings came in State v. Maugaotega (available here) and State v. Gomez (available here). A local press report provide the basics in this article from Hawaii. And BNA subscribers can read about both rulings at this link.
October 18, 2007 at 08:05 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The consequences of Cunningham in Hawaii and Tennessee:
Connecticut's high court has also recently struck down that state's "persistent dangerous felony offender" provisions, based on Blakely and Cunningham. State v. Bell, 2007 WL 2481026 (9/11/07).
Posted by: Andrew Fine | Oct 18, 2007 4:51:04 PM