Interesting state Blakely reports

After a long but enjoyably uneventful trip to attend this conference, I am now on-line and on west coast time.  And, upon checking my e-mail, I was pleased to find two reports about recent state Blakely developments.  I hope the helpful correspondents won't mind me sharing their text verbatim:

• From a correspondent in Alaska: "The Alaska Court of Appeals issued a decision in Alaska v. Gibbs, No. A-8953 (Alaska App. Jan 5, 2005), involving a straight application of Blakely. The court held that a sentence of unsuspended imprisonment that was less than the statutory maximum did not violate Blakely. The possibility that additional imprisonment might be imposed, if the defendant's probation were revoked, and thus violate Blakely was not yet ripe."

• From a correspondent in Ohio: "The Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled today that Blakely does not apply to Ohio sentencing statutes calling them an indeterminate sentencing scheme.  Cases are State v. Jenkins CA 22008 [2005 Ohio 11; 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 5 (Ohio App. Jan. 5, 2005)] and State v. Rowles CA 22007."

In addition, I see on-line that Washington is keeping Blakely busy in the new year with another Blakely reversal: State v. Smith, 2005 Wash. App. LEXIS 16 (Wash. App. Jan. 4, 2005).  (Other 2005 Washington rulings are detailed here.)  Smith is notable because it generates a dissent over Blakely's applicability in a sex offender case involving a unique provision of Washington's sentencing law.