Skip to content
Version 1.0.0
Sentencing Law and Policy
Part of the Law Professor Blogs Network

So many more state Blakely rulings

By Douglas Berman
November 18, 2004

The noteworthy Blakely rulings from state courts continue to come in at a fast and furious pace (see here for more recent evidence).  Already this week alone, we have more consequential rulings from Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and Washington (and, of course, the obligatory weekly collection from California).  Also, just on line is an important Delaware ruling from last week.

Though all of these decisions deserve fuller discussion, today the best I can reasonably do is provide summary highlights.  I encourage readers to use the comments to note any exceptional features of these cases that merit spotlighting:

  • In Benge v. State, 2004 Del. LEXIS 506 (Del. Nov. 12, 2004), the Delaware Supreme Court declared “Blakely does not impact Delaware’s sentencing scheme because the SENTAC guidelines are voluntary and non-binding.”
  • In Lampitok v. State, 2004 WL 2590817 (Ind. App. Nov. 16, 2004), the court drops a footnote to give the “prior conviction” exception a broad application (INCourts provides more details here
  • In State v. Berry, 2004 WL 2580555, 2004-Ohio-6027 (Ohio App. 12 Dist. Nov. 15, 2004), the court articulates two bases on which the court claims Ohio’s sentencing system completely escapes the application of Blakely
  • In State v. Natale, 2004 WL 2599892 (N.J. Super. A.D. Nov. 17, 2004), the court concluded New Jersey’s presumptive sentencing scheme is generally impacted by Blakely (and, again, INCourts covers the highlights here
  • In State v. Alkire, 2004 WL 2580772 (Wash. App. Div. 1, Nov 15, 2004), the court upholds a sentence based on the “prior conviction” exception (and does despite the fact the defendant’s “invites this court to abandon the ‘crumbling foundation’ of Almendarez-Torres and the prior conviction exception”).

And, for continuing coverage of the continuing stream of California cases, remember that the First District Appellate Project is here keeping up with recent major rulings, and Jonathan Soglin here notes a California published opinion that apparently breaks a little new ground.