« Looking at the Justices' methods in Baze | Main | Eleventh Circuit reverses sentence "impermissible factor" »

April 21, 2008

Another ACCA case and the Baze aftermath from SCOTUS

Lyle Denniston in this post at SCOTUSblog provides a report on the SCOTUS order list this morning, which includes yet another ACCA cert grant and some of the post-Baze fall-out:

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to rule on the government’s power to impose “anti-dumping” import fees on foreign goods that are re-manufactured from U.S. raw materials, and returned to the U.S. at a low price.  The Court also granted a second case, testing whether a failure to report to prison that leads to a conviction for escaspe can be the basis for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

In a series of orders following up its ruling last week allowing states to use the lethal injection method of capital punishment, the Court simply denied review of 11 appeals by death-row inmates. Justic e John Paul Stevens noted in two of the case that denial of review was not the same as a rejection of the inmates’ legal challenges on the merits. Although some inmates have claimed that the procedure in their states differs in some ways from the procedure upheld by the Court in Baze v. Rees, the Court did not order lower courts in any of the 11 cases to reconsider and take Baze into account.

April 21, 2008 at 10:41 AM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another ACCA case and the Baze aftermath from SCOTUS:


I'm glad to see the cert grant on escape and the ACCA. As I expressed in the comments here
(http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/04/early-thoughts.html#comments), as I read Begay, one of my reactions was "what about escape?"

These continual ACCA cert grants on specific offenses (attempted burglary, DUI, escape), to me, demonstrates the validity of Scalia's criticism on how a majority of the Court has been approaching these cases. If even the Court cannot figure a holistic approach to these cases, how are my clients supposed to be "on notice"? See James at 1602 ("Offenders should be on notice that a particular course of conduct will result in a mandatory minimum prison term of 15 years. The Court prefers to keep them guessing.") (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Posted by: DEJ | Apr 21, 2008 12:03:30 PM

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