Blakely
vs. Washington
Filed by U.S. Supreme Court - June 24, 2004
This U.S. Supreme Court decision deals with significant issues regarding the
imposition of sentences in criminal cases. The document does not reside
on this web site. This is a link to the decision posted on the U.S. Supreme
Court web site.
Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals decision referencing Blakely (State
vs. Michael Poe ).
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Title 40 and Title 55,
relative to the sentencing of persons convicted of criminal offenses
Governor Phil Bredesen signed Senate Bill 2249/House Bill 2262 on Tuesday,
June 7 th. The legislation became effective as of that date. The new law
eliminates presumptive sentencing from Tennessee ’s sentencing law.
The former presumptive sentence provisions are replaced with a series of
guidelines that include enhancement and mitigating factors and a statement
of principles and sentencing considerations. The new law requires the judge
to consider, but not be bound by, these advisory guidelines to arrive at
an appropriate sentence which is subject to appellate review. Additionally,
probation eligibility is increased from eight year to ten years.
National Center for State Courts Responds to the Effects of the Blakely Decision
Williamsburg, VA (July 26, 2004) – In response to ongoing uncertainty
on how the recent Supreme Court sentencing decision, Blakely v. Washington,
affects the state courts, the National Center for State Courts prepared
a document that analyzes this decision’s impact. It is available at www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/KIS_SentenBlakely.pdf.
- REPORT OF THE GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE
ON THE USE OF ENHANCEMENT FACTORS
IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING (ISSUED MARCH 2005)
- AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39;
Title 40 and
Title 55, relative to the sentencing of criminal defendants. (Proposed 2005 legislation)
- Opinion of the Tennessee Attorney General regarding the application of
Blakely. July 2004
- State
v. Edwin Gomez & Jonathan S.
Londono- M2002-01209-SC-R11-CD
Tennessee Supreme Court Case with Blakely implications
- United
States vs. Booker (Syllabus and Opinion)
This file is fairly large and may take a long time to load.
In United States v. Booker,
the United States Supreme Court held that the sentencing considerations
earlier enumerated by the Court in Blakely v. Washington apply
to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Court compared the Federal
scheme to the Washington state sentencing procedure addressed
in Blakely. The Court noted that "[w]ere the
Guidelines [Federal Sentencing Guidelines] merely advisory – recommending,
but not requiring, the selection of particular sentences in response
to differing sets of facts – their use would not implicate the
Sixth Amendment." The "shall" language of the Guidelines
binds a judge to impose a sentence within the Guidelines range.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court, in its ruling, invalidated the
mandatory portions of the Federal Sentencing Reform Act.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the Sixth Amendment is violated by the imposition of
an enhanced
sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on
the
sentencing judge's determination of a fact (other than a prior
conviction) that
was not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.
2. If the answer to the first question is "yes," the
following question is presented: whether, in a case in which
the Guidelines would require the court to find a sentence-enhancing
fact, the Sentencing Guidelines as a whole would be inapplicable,
as a matter of severability analysis, such that the sentencing
court must exercise its discretion to sentence the defendant within
the maximum and minimum set by statute for the offense of
conviction.
Governor Bredesen
Moves to Preserve Sentencing Laws
Governor Phil Bredesen has named a panel of criminal justice officials charged
with making recommendations to preserve the use of enhancement factors in Tennessee’s
criminal sentencing laws, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
The Governor’s Task Force on the Use of Enhancement Factors in Criminal
Sentencing will determine if a special session of the General Assembly is
necessary to protect the Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act called
into question by the ruling and will determine what legislation, if any,
might be necessary.
In Blakely v. Washington, the nation’s highest court struck down part
of the sentencing structure used by the State of Washington, a system that – like
Tennessee’s – is based on presumptive sentences and the determination
of enhancement and mitigating factors by judges.
The Task Force is scheduled to meet at the following times and
places (All times CDT) :
- August 27, 2004, 9:00 a.m. in Room 16 of Legislative Plaza
- September 17, 2004, 9:00 a.m. in Room 16 of Legislative Plaza
- October 8, 2004 , 9:00 a.m. in Room 16 of Legislative Plaza
Governor's
Press Release