Difference between revisions of "Blakely v. Washington"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
FernoKlump (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Blakely v. Washington'', 542 U.S. 296 (2004), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that facts, other than a prior conviction, supporting a sentence above the standard sentencing range in a legislatively prescribed sentencing guidelines system must be found be a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. | + | In '''''Blakely v. Washington''''', 542 U.S. 296 (2004), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that facts, other than a prior conviction, supporting a sentence above the standard sentencing range in a legislatively prescribed sentencing guidelines system must be found be a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote the Court decision, while Justices [[Anthony Kennedy]], [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] and [[Stephen Breyer]] and Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] were in dissent. | Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote the Court decision, while Justices [[Anthony Kennedy]], [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] and [[Stephen Breyer]] and Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] were in dissent. | ||
Revision as of 23:51, April 29, 2008
In Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court held that facts, other than a prior conviction, supporting a sentence above the standard sentencing range in a legislatively prescribed sentencing guidelines system must be found be a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the Court decision, while Justices Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer and Chief Justice William Rehnquist were in dissent.
This case concerned a state criminal proceeding. The U.S. Supreme Court extended this Blakely rule to the federal Sentencing Guidelines in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
External Links
- Case at FindLaw (registration may be required)