apprendi/blakely page
ARTICLES DCA ORDERS PENDING ISSUES POST-BLAKELY DECISIONS BRIEFING SAMPLES
Blakely-Apprendi-Cunningham Articles
"JABS" and "UPPER" Cuts
Posted: 06/20/05
This article is a follow-up to two prior articles regarding the impact of the United States Supreme Court's recent opinions Jones, Apprendi, Blakely and Shepard (collectively, "JABS") on sentencing determinations in California.
Download as: 
Shephard v. United States
Posted: 03/11/05
This new U.S. Supreme Court opinion may have negative implications for Almendarez-Torres & Guerrero. Read a short analysis that describes Shepard as an important addition to the Jones-Apprendi-Blakely line of cases.
Download as:
An Approach to Understanding and Applying Blakely v. Washington to Sentencing Determinations in California
Posted: 10/06/04
An approach to understanding and applying Blakely v. Washington to sentencing determinations in California
Download as:
Quick-cite case companion to this article:
- Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. __ [124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403]
- Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 224
(no right to jury trial on prior conviction enhancements.) - Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466
(there is a federal constitutional right to a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt “for any fact (other than prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime.”)
- Harris v. United States (2002) 536 U.S. 545
(McMillan reaffirmed; Apprendi does not apply to fact-finding used to impose a minimum mandatory sentence.)
- Jones v. United States (1999) 526 U.S. 227
(serious bodily injury provision of the federal carjacking statute was an element of the offense and subject to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; Court avoided constitutional question by applying the doctrine of avoiding constitutional doubt and finding a legislative intent that the serious bodily injury allegation be treated as an element.)
- McMillan v. Pennsylania (1986) 477 U.S. 79
(a firearm use enhancement which increased the minimum, but not the maximum possible sentence, did not require jury adjudication and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.)
- Monge v. California (1998) 524 U.S. 721
(retrial of prior convictions following insufficiency finding not barred by double jeopardy.)
- Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 U.S. 584
(“we overrule Walton to the extent that it allows a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty.”)
- Walton v. Arizona (1990) 497 U.S. 639
(a judge may determine the presence of aggravating factors in a death case; overruled in Ring.)