En banc Pennsylvania court upholds state sentencing scheme over Blakely challenge
Contributing to another yet another fascinating state Blakely day, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, sitting en banc, has ruled that the state’s guideline sentencing system is constitutionally sound. Here is the opening of the majority’s ruling in Commonwealth v. Kleinicke, No. 986 MDA 2003 (Sup. Ct. Pa. Mar. 8, 2006) (available for download below):
In this appeal, we consider whether Appellant’s sentence violated the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). After careful review, we conclude that the principles for which these cases stand were not implicated because 18 Pa.C.S. § 7508 merely increased the minimum sentence and not Appellant’s maximum term of imprisonment.
The ruling generated two notable and interesting dissents. When I get a chance to read all 71 pages, I hope to follow-up with commentary. In the meantime, Keystone State lawyers (and any state Blakely fans) are highly encouraged to weigh in on Kleinicke.