Thursday, August 12, 2004

State of the States


A few weeks ago, the Michigan Supreme Court, in Michigan v. Claypool, ruled that the Michigan guidelines are compatible with Blakely. The court's decision has come under attack by some as premature.

For example, today an article in the Detroit Free Press entitled, "State Supreme Court ruling needlessly hasty," makes the argument that the court failed to give Blakely the attention it deserves. In an earlier article, Jim Neuward, director of the State Appellate Defender Office, makes a similar point.

Lower courts in Michigan are also voicing their unease. See posts here and here.

One final observation, while we're still in Michigan. I can't help but notice that my friend, Ohio State University Mortiz School of Law Professor Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy, linked to a Sports Illustrated preseason ranking of college football teams. If you want a far more accurate poll, I recommend the ESPN poll. Go Blue!


Remember the Minnesota Commission Report that said that the state's guidelines were basically sound?

Well, the Minnesota court system is about to test that hypothesis in a few remands in: State v. Heath, 2004 Minn. App. LEXIS 939 (A03-737)(Minn. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2004) and State v. Kaufman, 2004 Minn. App. LEXIS 923, 1-2 (A03-927)(Minn. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2004).

California reports: Court Rescinds Threat to Hold Pay for 'Blakely'

California's 5th District Court of Appeal backpedaled Wednesday on an order that appellate lawyers said had discouraged them from using the historic Blakely sentencing decision to help their clients.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?