More Blakely state reports

With many thanks to the many FOBs (“friends of blog”) sending in reports, I can follow up this morning’s state Blakely round-up with some additional interesting state reporting.  The states of note this afternoon are Minnesota, Ohio and Washington.

MINNESOTA: The news from comes in the form of two decisions from Minnesota Court of Appeals.  In State v. Hagen, C0-02-1318 (Minn. App. Dec. 28, 2004), the court clarifies that an “upward durational departure under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines may not be based on an “admission” by the defendant, under Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), unless the “admission” to an aggravating factor is accompanied by the defendant’s waiver of his or her right to a jury trial on the aggravating factor.”  In State v. Brooks, A03-2050 (Minn. App. Dec. 28, 2004), the court concluded that Blakely did “does not require that a jury find, or a defendant admit, the existence of a custody status point” because (according to the court) assignment of those points are like a prior conviction.

OHIO: The report here is a third-hand account from an Ohio lawyer “that Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Moyer, at a training for new judges, said that the Ohio Supreme Court was taking Blakely ‘VERY seriously.'”  This is great news because, as noted in a number of previous posts (examples here and here and here and here), the story of Blakely in Ohio is very serious.

WASHINGTON: The report from Blakely‘s home state is that a group a committee of prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers have a proposal in the works for the Washington legislature when it reconvenes next month which would involve the “Blakely-ization” of Washington’s guideline scheme by providing for aggravating facts, other than the fact of a prior conviction, to be placed before the jury.