Will Booker and Fanfan clarify Blakely admissions?

I noted here not long after Blakely came down how many questions the decision raised, but left off that initial list was what qualifies as a sufficient factual “admission” by a defendant to allow for an enhanced sentence.  As detailed here, the Northern District of Texas Federal Public Defender filed an amicus brief in Booker and Fanfan just to address this “admissions” issue, which spotlights its considerable importance.

I have been meaning to highlight some insightful dicta from a Third Circuit case last month discussing the admissions issue.  In US v. Thomas, 2004 WL 2680755 (3d Cir. Nov. 26, 2004), the court detailed the ambiguities stemming from the fact that “the Blakely opinion excepts from its scope sentences imposed ‘on the basis of the facts … admitted by the defendant.'”  Here is the court’s lament:

There are at least four possible interpretations of the language “facts … admitted by the defendant.”  First, that language could refer to facts set forth in the indictment to which the defendant pled guilty.  Second, it could refer to facts set forth in the written plea agreement entered into by the defendant. Third, it could be limited to the facts necessary to prove a violation of the offense charged in the indictment.  Fourth, it could refer to facts admitted in the colloquy with the District Court.

Based on the facts before it, the Thomas court could avoid resolving this matter.  But in a number of state and federal decisions since Blakely, lower courts have given various interpretations as to what sort of admissions are sufficient for Blakely purposes: e.g., Michael Ausbrook at INCourts thoughtfully noted how this issue was addressed in the case of Trusley v. State, No. 41A01-0403-CR-109 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2004), from Indiana in this post, and judges on the Tennessee appellate court tussled over this issue recently in State v. Walters, 2004 WL 2726034 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 30, 2004).

Because both Booker and Fanfan arise from jury trials rather than pleas, it seems unlikely this addmissions issue will be directly addressed by the High Court.  However, what sort of admissions are sufficient for Blakely purposes is yet another critical practical issue that will need to be worked through in the post-Blakely world.