Blakely-coping, California style

As if the day was not already mind-boggling enough, a reader from California was kind enough to send along news of this startling Standing Order that was recently entered by the Fifth District California Court of Appeal. The Order clearly is an effort to cope with (or perhaps just duck) Blakely issues until the California Supreme Court addresses Blakely‘s California meaning in two cases already slated for review. (Those two California cases are People v. Towne (background here), and People v. Black (background here). Here’s the full text of the Standing Order:

Effective August 3, 2004, this court will no longer compensate appointed counsel for research or briefing directed to any issue presented by Blakely v. Washington (2004), pending opinions by the California Supreme Court in People v. Towne (review granted Jul. 14, 2004, S125677), and People v. Black (review granted Jul. 28, 2004, S126182).

However, if counsel or appellant wishes to raise a Blakely issue in any case pending before this court, he or she may file a letter stating with precision the Blakely issue[s] he or she wishes to raise on the appellant’s behalf and this court will deem such issue[s] raised, thereby preserving the appellant’s ability to seek review of the issue[s] in the California Supreme Court. The failure to identify an issue by a letter will operate as a waiver. The People, through the Attorney General, need not file any response to such a letter statement and the court will deem the stated issue[s] to be opposed by the People.

The Court may request further briefing in any case and will reevaluate this order after the California Supreme Court rules in Towne and Black. This order does not apply to any pending appeal in which this court has ordered or authorized, on or before August 2, 2004, specific briefing on a Blakely issue. The purpose of this order is to ensure that the subject issues will be raised and preserved for review in an efficient manner.

Dated: August 2, 2004
DIBIASO, ACTING P.J.

I am not sure whether to decry this order as unconstitutional or praise it as brilliant. It does reinforce for me the enormous challenges courts face trying to sort compelling Blakely claims from frivolous ones. I am not sure this Standing Order — with its slightly hidden “waiver” threat — is a sound (or even legally permissible) sorting mechanism. But I am not surprised to see a court looking for life preservers in the face of a tidal wave of Blakely claims.