PRINT PAGE

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 "JABS" and "UPPER" Cuts as Word (file will open in new window)

Download "JABS" and "UPPER" Cuts as WordPerfect (file will open in new window)

Download "JABS" and "UPPER" Cuts as PDF (file will open in new window)

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 Shephard v. United States as Word (file will open in new window)

Download Shephard v. United States as WordPerfect (file will open in new window)

Download Shephard v. United States as PDF (file will open in new window)

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 Blakely v. Washington as Word (file will open in new window)

Download Blakely v. Washington as WordPerfect (file will open in new window)

Download Blakely v. Washington as PDF (file will open in new window)

 

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.)

 

BACK TO TOP