|News from the Director
Last week, in a case which had not been "on the radar" for most of us, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly expanded Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, in a way which casts serious doubt on the constitutionality of California's Determinate Sentencing Law and, in particular, on the validity of most upper terms based on aggravating circumstances other than recidivism. (Blakely v. Washington (June 24, 2003; 02-1632) 542 U.S ___, 2004 WL 1402697, 04 C.D.O.S. 5539, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7581 [slip opn. on Supreme Court's web site].) FDAP Staff Attorney J. Bradley O'Connell has prepared a memorandum representing some very preliminary thoughts on the apparent implications of Blakely for California sentences. We expect to supplement or update these comments in the coming days and weeks and may also post sample "Blakely arguments" as they become available.
Download the memorandum in the format of your choice ...
[an error occurred while processing this directive]