More interesting state appellate Blakely decisions

The Blakely work being done in the state appellate courts continues to be quite important and intriguing.  Indeed, recent posts here and here and here and here highlight the breath and scope of all the recent state Blakely rulings.  And more notable decisions this week come from Indiana and Tennessee intermediate appellate courts.

• From Indiana, we get Trusley v. State, 2004 WL 2676537 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2004), which reaches various important conclusions (both directly and indirectly) in the course of remanding for resentencing because the defendant’s “sentence was enhanced because of aggravating factors other than criminal history, which aggravating factors were not found by a jury or admitted by [the defendant].”  As he does so well, Michael Ausbrook at INCourts here discusses this Indiana ruling in detail.

• From Tennessee, we get State v. Wallace, 2004 WL 2671619 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 23, 2004), which addresses at length and thoughtfully whether Blakely applies to a judicial decision to impose consecutive sentences. The court initially notes that “it may be logically argued that a consecutive sentence is a greater punishment than a concurrent sentence. If so, Blakely may require a jury’s finding of facts, other than prior convictions, as a state law predicate for the imposition of consecutive sentencing.”  But the court goes on to read the Blakely line of precedents to indicate “that the due process and jury trial guarantees have no application to a judge’s consecutive sentencing determination.”  Consequently, the Wallace court holds “once convictions and the lengths of individual sentences are determined, the judge is the arbiter of whether the sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively.”