In re state Blakely interpretations

As suggested in this recent post, I have largely given up trying to comprehensively track Blakely decisions coming from lower state courts.  (Actually, as noted here, I gave up tracking the California caselaw weeks ago — there are now nearly 250 California state Blakely rulings on-line!) 

There are just too many opinions from too many states to follow all the Blakely state action: including the Oregon rulings noted here, there have been more than two dozen consequential lower state court Blakely rulings — coming from 10 different states — in the last week alone.  I previously noted here that, as of October 16, a total 239 state Blakely cases were on-line via Westlaw; as of this morning, less than two months later, that total is up to 506.

With the state Blakely caselaw starting to mature, most of the recent state rulings do not break major new ground.  Nevertheless, they provide a rich view of all the different ways the Blakely earthquake is rumbling through the states.  Moreover, even a quick review of some of these decisions spotlights how many Blakely questions — on issues ranging from admissions to retroactivity to the prior conviction exception — are in need of definite answers as soon as possible.

The many intra-state disputes over interpretations of Blakely — see examples in Ohio and California — can and will, of course, first get resolved in state supreme court rulings.  But, I think that, before too long, the US Supreme Court will have to get involved and resolve the (perhaps inevitable) inter-state disputes about key Blakely issues.  These issues will surely be making their way into lower federal courts through federal habeas actions, and their definite resolution as soon as possible will be critical for the efficient administration of justice.

Of late, I have been thinking that the Booker and Fanfan delay could be the result of the Court trying to speak broadly about Blakely‘s meaning (so as to provide additional guidance on all these issues), but having struggles with the exact language.  But that may be just wishful thinking on my part as I worry about how many years and cases we might need to get all the Blakely kinks worked out.  (After all, we are nearly 40 years since Miranda and 30+ years since Furman and we are still working to figure out these areas of criminal procedure jurisprudence.)