Big Blakely news from sunny states

Big news from two newspaper reports of noteworthy Blakely rulings in sunny locales.  First, this news story from Florida reports on a resentencing decision in which the judge concluded that Blakely precluded him from adding eight years to a sentence for attempted murder and aggravated child abuse.  This is the first report I have seen of Blakely impacting sentencing in Florida

Second, this news story from Hawaii indicates that a federal district judge granted a state defendant habeas relief last week on an Apprendi/Blakely claim.  I will quote at length from the story, because this seems like an important ruling, but I cannot find the decision on-line:

U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway ruled last week that Wayman Kaua should receive a 20-year term after he was convicted of attempted manslaughter following the standoff, in which he fired more than 17 shots and left thousands of Pearl City residents stranded for about 22 hours….

Mollway said the life term violated Kaua’s federal constitutional rights because a state judge, not the jury, enhanced his sentence, from a maximum of 20 years he was facing for the conviction on attempted manslaughter and related counts, to life in prison….

The jury rejected the attempted-murder verdict and convicted Kaua on lesser offenses of attempted manslaughter and other charges that ordinarily carry a maximum 20-year term.

But at sentencing, Honolulu Prosecutor Peter Carlisle asked that Kaua’s sentence be extended to the life term because he committed multiple offenses and the sentence would be “necessary for the protection of the public.”

Huddy granted the extended term. He said Kaua abused drugs and could not control his behavior when under the influence of drugs or under extreme stress. The state high court twice affirmed the sentence, the latest ruling coming in 2003.

“The Hawai’i Supreme Court’s conclusion that Kaua’s extended sentence did not violate (the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Apprendi v. New Jersey) was contrary to, and involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Mollway wrote.